Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal to hon. Members who catch my eye to ask one supplementary question, in fairness to those who follow.

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Unemployment Statistics

Mr. Barry Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Wales by how much unemployment has risen in Wales since May 1979.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): Between May 1979 and October 1980 the number of people registered as unemployed in Wales, seasonally adjusted and excluding school leavers, increased by about 35,900.

Mr. Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why he has failed to pro-

tect the Welsh textile industry against redundancies and damaging imports? Why has he not safeguarded the interests of the paper making industry in North-East Wales and at Bowaters where my constituents work? Will he undertake to fight in the Cabinet for energy subsidies for the textile and paper making industries?

Mr. Edwards: On textiles, it is the Government's policy to enforce the multi-fibre arrangement as tightly as possible and to take action through the EEC, GATT, and other agreements, to ensure that every measure is taken under these international agreements. The Government offered substantial financial assistance for the modernisation of the Bowater plant with the object of putting it into a condition where it could compete effectively. I regret to say that those proposals were not acceptable to Bowater.

Sir Raymond Gower: Will my right hon. Friend emphasise to his Cabinet colleagues, when the Government are considering new methods of promoting industrial development in the United Kingdom, the degree to which Wales as a whole, and the industrial parts of Wales in particular, have suffered from the contraction and the closing down of so many units in the old traditional industries? Will he make this a case for promoting a lot of new industry to take its place?

Mr. Edwards: I have done so repeatedly. That is why the Government


have announced a major package of measures to improve the infrastructure and to assist the arrival of the new industries that my hon. Friend seeks. My hon. Friend will know that, in connection with the Inmos project, for example, I intend to seek to launch a significant new initiative in training for the new skills that will be required. If we are to exploit the opportunity that Inmos provides, and attract similar industries to the area, we have to make sure that we can provide the services and the skills that those people will be seeking.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Secretary of State accept that there is a substantial additional cost to the Government when people become unemployed? For an average industrial employee with a wife and two children, this amounts to £5,920 in the first year of unemployment. Does not the right hon. Gentleman believe that it is crazy in these circumstances to be making people unemployed and that Government policy should be to maintain people in employment?

Mr. Edwards: There is an expense that arises due to the reason that the hon. Gentleman has set out, although I do not necessarily accept the specific figure that he mentions. The Government have to take a balance between the desire to ease the burdens on industry generally by reducing public expenditure and the specific benefits that are payable to those who lose their jobs. If one seeks artificially to create jobs that are not producing goods that can be sold, one is placing additional burdens on other parts of industry and destroying jobs elsewhere.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, at a time when unemployment is mounting alarmingly in every industrialised country, Wales' best chance of keeping and attracting new jobs is to establish and maintain a good reputation for labour relations? Has my right hon. Friend received any encouragement from the Labour Party to suggest that it will consult trade unions in an endeavour to maintain that good reputation in Wales?

Mr. Edwards: During my American visit I discovered that many American companies operating in Wales had a very high opinion of the labour relations in their operating plants, I welcomed the

presence of the chairman of the Wales TUC, John Griffiths, on that mission. He is playing his part in telling the right story. On the bad side of the equation, our record on big construction projects is doing us some harm. I emphasise how important it is that we improve that one aspect, which spoils our reputation in Wales today.

Mr. Alec Jones: We understand why the right hon. Gentleman chose to use the seasonally adjusted figures; it was because the actual increase is about 46,000. The increase in unemployment of 55 per cent. is the end product of the right hon. Gentleman's achievements in Wales. Can he confirm the report in today's issue of the Western Mail that he has said that there is no alternative? If he believes that there is no alternative to the Government's policies, he must be the only person in Wales who does. Even his friends in the CBI are now deserting him. At a recent conference in Cardiff they called for a number of things, including a massive reduction in interest rates. What does the right hon. Gentleman think is the effect in Wales of high interest rates?

Mr. Edwards: The right hon. Gentleman has asked his usual series of questions. Our decision to give the answer in the form in which it was given—seasonally adjusted—follows the practice followed by successive Governments, including the right hon. Gentleman's own. It was always the practice of his Government to give the figures in that way. Apparently only two choices are being offered by the Opposition. One is to pursue the policies that they pursued in government, which failed and which caused unemployment in Wales more than to double. The other is a protectionist, State-directed, Socialist economy of the kind that we see in Eastern Europe. I do not think that that provides a very attractive alternative to the Welsh people.

Enterprise Zone (South Wales)

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about progress being made towards the creation of an enterprise zone in South Wales.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Discussions with the local authorities involved in the Swansea area have reached an advanced


stage, and I hope to make a further announcement soon.

Mr. Knox: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the enterprise zone will be a great asset to South Wales, and that the sooner it is established, the better?

Mr. Edwards: I believe that that is right. I welcome the support that the local authorities are giving to the project. I hope that we shall be able to announce the firm go-ahead later this month.

Mr. Alan Williams: Does the Secretary of State realise that the local authorities in West Glamorgan would sooner have the enterprise zone than have nothing but that they regard it as very poor compensation for the loss of development area status, when nearly 30 firms within the county have declared redundancies? Is he aware of the type of protest that we are now receiving? For example, one company already producing in Swansea protests that one of its competitors, which fortuitously is within the area that will be an enterprise zone but which is mainly an importer, is now to be put at a competitive advantage.

Mr. Edwards: I have of course received representations about development area status generally for that part of Wales. We have undertaken to keep the position continually under review. As to the boundaries of the zone, I am awaiting recommendations from the local authorities before taking final decisions. There are certain proposals to include places adjacent to the area so far proposed, and we shall consider the final recommendations from the local authorities.
As to the effects elsewhere, any selective policy—this applies to regional policy generally—may have some adverse consequences on firms outside. We have therefore said that we shall monitor the scheme very carefully. Our conclusion is that the boost that it will give to the area generally far outweighs any possible individual disadvantage for particular firms.

Local Authority Boundaries

Sir Anthony Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from local authorities in Wales regarding the latest proposals of the Boundary Commission for local authority boundaries.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): Numerous representations are received on the proposals submitted in the Boundary Commission's reports. These representations are considered at the time they are made.

Sir A. Meyer: Is my hon. Friend aware that the re-wording arrangements proposed for Rhuddlan borough council, as regards the Meliden community and the arrangements for combining the three community councils of Waen, Tremeirchion and Bodfari, Cwm have very much upset the elected representatives, who consider that their views have been set at naught in the interests of bureaucratic tidiness?

Mr. Roberts: I can assure my hon. Friend that the decision on the special community review of Rhuddlan, announced in July of this year, was the culmination of a long statutory process that started in 1975. During this time the representations of local authorities and others have been considered at three separate stages—twice by the commission and once by my right hon. Friend before he came to a decision. In the absence of any new evidence, he is not prepared to reconsider that decision.

Trunk Road Development

Mr. Hooson: asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has considered ways in which the effects of trunk road development on the farming industry can be mitigated; and whether he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Michael Roberts): Officials of the Welsh Office met representatives of farming interests in June and September this year to discuss the effects of trunk road improvements on the farming community. The discussions have drawn attention to the problems to which trunk road improvement can give rise, and the Welsh Office will be endeavouring to minimise them.

Mr. Hooson: Will my hon. Friend ensure that there is a regular exchange of views on this subject with representatives of the farming industry?

Mr. Roberts: My right hon. Friend attaches the greatest importance to the preservation and protection of agricultural land, as I know my hon. Friend


does. Officials of the Welsh Office will be ready to meet representatives of the farming industry whenever there are problems relating to trunk road improvements that a meeting will help to solve.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Will the Minister and his Department look at the standards for trunk road construction in national parks with a view to establishing whether it is possible—although clearly the road widths must be maintained—to construct roads in a way that does not take so much land and does not damage the environment within the national parks?

Mr. Roberts: In the construction of roads, particularly in the national parks, we are very concerned not to cause any more visual obtrusion than is necessary. We try to buy just sufficient land to make the road and the essential services that go with it.

Local Authority Expenditure (Job Losses)

Mr. Wigley: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of jobs that have been lost in local government in Wales over the past 12 months because of the reduction in expenditure by local authorities as a result of Government pressure; and what estimate he has of the number of jobs which will be lost over the next 12 months arising from these policies.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The most recent information refers to the period June 1979 to June 1980, when the total number of local authority employees in Wales, including part-timers, fell by 3,043. Further manpower reductions will take place over the next 12 months, as local authorities reduce their expenditure to conform with the Government's guidelines, but this cannot be estimated, since the amount depends on the decisions individual authorities take to secure the necessary expenditure savings.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Secretary of State accept that the cuts that the Government are now pressing on local authorities are having devastating effects? Is he aware that my own county council, Gwynedd, in facing the possibility of £ 4 million cuts, must contemplate the closure of Coleg Pencraig at Llangefni and of three old people's homes, the

emasculation of the home help service and the abolition of nursery education? Is that the sum total of Government policy?

Mr. Edwards: I note that in the period to which I have referred local authority manpower fell by only 2.5 per cent., while we have reduced manpower in the Welsh Office by 6.4 per cent. I believe that there is plenty of scope for further reductions in manpower rather than the cuts in services that the hon. Gentleman described. He would do well to press on his local authorities the importance of cutting their manpower rather than cutting services.

Mr. Delwyn Williams: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in cutting public service manpower he will in proportion be supplementing an increase in employment in the private sector, because to increase employment in the public sector one must borrow more money, which the private sector now desperately needs? Is it not better to have a small increase in unemployment in the public sector, in order to increase employment in the private sector?

Mr. Edwards: We cannot have services unless we create the wealth with which to pay them. The burden of public expenditure is discouraging private sector production. That is why local authorities have to play their part in reducing spending and manpower.

Mr. Alan Williams: Does the Secretary of State realise that, despite his wishful thinking, when the jobs go the services that they provide—for the elderly, the young, the disabled and the needy—will be either massively reduced or disappear altogether? We are told that further cuts are being demanded by the Treasury. Has the right hon. Gentleman taken a leaf out of the book of the Secretary of State for Defence, since Welsh unemployment now stands at 129,000, and had the courage to tell the Prime Minister that enough is enough, or is he happy to keep his own job even if it means putting the jobs of everyone else in Wales at risk?

Mr. Edwards: The right hon. Gentleman must be one of the few people alive who does not believe that there is room for economies in local government manpower. I believe that local government has a duty to improve the productive


wealth of the country and to examine and reduce its manpower level before it reduces services.

United States of America

Mr. Best: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about his recent visit to the United States of America.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: My visit to the United States of America was an investment promotion mission undertaken in conjunction with the Development Corporation for Wales. Over a three week period I had detailed discussions with 20 companies, took part in numerous presentations and talked to a large number of industrialists potentially interested in investing in Wales.

Mr. Best: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this major positive initiative will be welcomed by the people of Wales as a step towards trying to increase further investment in the principality? When my right hon. Friend was in America he spoke with the Kaiser Corporation—not "the Kaiser." Will he continue to press on his Cabinet colleagues methods of reducing energy costs to high energy-consuming industries so that they can expand in the Principality? I refer to particularly to Anglesey Aluminium.

Mr. Edwards: Kaiser is a principal shareholder in Anglesey Aluminium. That company has spoken of the importance that it attaches to its plant in Anglesey. It has made a number of specific proposals to reduce energy costs with a view to enlarging operations in Anglesey. We have asked the corporation to provide in more detail specific statistics and proposals in connection with the scheme. As soon as we have that information we shall give it urgent attention.

Mr. Denzil Davies: On the Secretary of State's recent jaunt to the United States at the expense of the British taxpayer to consult "the Kaiser" did he make clear that the worst possible economic recipe for the United States and for Wales would be for the United States to follow the type of Friedmanite, mad monetary policies which this Government are pursuing? If he goes again to the United States at the taxpayers' expense will he make clear that such policies have caused

high inflation, high unemployment and the destruction of the Welsh manufacturing industry?

Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman has fallen below his usual standard. He should not come to the House and suggest that efforts by a large number of people in Wales—including members of the trade union movement—to encourage inward investment, are a matter for cheap jibes. Right across the United States we found widespread interest in investing in the United Kingdom for two reasons. First, United States industrialists believe that we are pursuing the policies that need to be pursued. Secondly, United States industrialists see us as a means of entering the European market. The greatest single disaster that could befall inward investment would be a threat to withdraw from Europe, as proposed by the Labour Party conference.

Welsh Office (Role)

Mr. Ioan Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what action is proposed to implement the proposals of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs report entitled "The Role of the Welsh Office and Associated Bodies in Developing Employment Opportunities in Wales", and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The Government hope to lay their response to the report before the House later this month.

Mr. Evans: In view of the urgency of some of the report's recommendations may we have an early debate? Is the Secretary of State aware that since the report two former Conservative Prime Ministers have said that the policies being pursued by the Government are calamitous? Is he aware that that is confirmed in evidence by the TUC and CBI in Wales? Will he implement the recommendations for the Cynon Valley and give it special development area status since three major firms have been closed there as a direct result of Government policies?

Mr. Edwards: It is important to have a debate on the report and on the conclusions, which we hope to put to the House soon. As to views about the industrial and economic situation, I am aware that many people over the years have thought that the way out of our


difficulties was to take the soft option. I fear that that is why we face some of the severe difficulties that we face today.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that although the report contains many interesting and valuable suggestions it is conceivable that this or any other Government should be able in present circumstances to accept them in full? None the less, will he pay special attention to the recommendations for earlier payments of investment grant and, particularly, the elimination of bureaucratic delays in the payment of the grants?

Mr. Edwards: We shall seek to eliminate bureaucratic delays. Clearly, I cannot give any specific response to the Select Committee's recommendations from the Dispatch Box today. As my hon. Friend observed, to carry out its proposals in full would involve substantial public expenditure. We shall have to take that into account when reaching our conclusions. We hope to lay our response later this month.

Mr. Abse: Will the Secretary of State note that, far from the proposals in the Select Committee report being those which should not be fully implemented, as a result of the appalling deterioration in the position their implementation is now inevitable? Will he ensure that in his reply he draws attention to table 3 of the report which sets out the areas which are black spots above 10 per cent.? Does he notice that most of Wales is now in that position and that the highly selective position no longer exists? Is he aware that my constituency, with the blows that it has had repeatedly in the last three or four weeks over ICI Nylons, GKN and Saunders Valves, and which 12 months ago was a comparatively prosperous community, is now coming down to penury? Does he recognise that that is a paradigm of the total situation? Will he have the guts to stand up to the Cabinet and insist upon a change in policy?

Mr. Edwards: I intend to respond to the Select Committee in the normal way, by laying a report before the House.

Mr. Alec Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman resist the temptation to follow the advice of the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer)? Is he aware

that, since the report was published, unemployment has risen by about 13,000, compared with a fall of 5,000 in a comparable period last year and 7,000 the year before? Does he agree that the chasm to which the report refers is now identified by all people in Wales, despite some Conservative Members who were party to the report wishing to run away from it? Will the Secretary of State make every effort to ensure that a day on the Floor of the House is devoted to a debate on that report? Does he accept that a debate in the Welsh Grand Committee would be nothing but second best?

Mr. Edwards: I should welcome the opportunity to debate the report and its consequences on the Floor of the House. I shall discuss that possibility with the Leader of the House.

Housing Act 1980

Sir Raymond Gower: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with local authorities in Wales concerning organisational and staff changes which may be required for the effective implementation of the provisions of the Housing Act extending the rights of tenants to buy their homes; and what progress he is able to report.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Organisational and staff changes are matters for individual local authorities. We are not formally monitoring sales, but my impression is that good progress is being made.

Sir R. Gower: Does my hon. Friend recognise that while a minority of the authorities have the experience and organisation to deal with such work, many have not sold houses for many years and some have never done so? In such circumstances is it not obvious that a strengthening of their legal departments and possibly some alterations in their housing departments will be required? Will account be taken of that when a judgment is made of the staff sizes and the cost of staff?

Mr. Roberts: I do not agree with all that my hon. Friend says. He is right to say that some councils already have experience of selling council houses. Those embarking on sales for the first time should find their job easier if maximum use is made of private solicitors and valuers. In the longer-term, council


house sales should lead to a significant decrease in the number of staff engaged on housing management and maintenance.

Mr. Anderson: Does not the Minister recognise that concentration on the sale of council houses is a grotesque diversion from the real housing needs of Wales? Does he realise that if sales abound there will be a reduction in the supply of public sector housing at the very time when, because of unemployment and a number of other reasons such as Government cutbacks, the tremendous housing needs of Wales will increase? Does he further realise that he is presiding over the greatest housing crisis in Wales since the Second World War?

Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to appreciate that a council house sold still remains part of the housing stock. I wish that he would encourage his council in Swansea to give mortgages so that more council houses, including prison officers' houses, could be sold to would-be owners. Does he not realise that if local authorities sell council houses they can increase their allocation and thereby meet real housing needs?

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Will the Minister say why his Department is not monitoring sales?

Mr. Roberts: There is no need to monitor council house sales. That would add both to the administrative burden in the Welsh Office and to the administrative burden of local authorities. The Welsh Office currently receives monthly statistics from local authorities giving details of sales of council houses. As from the end of the year authorities will also provide quarterly returns giving details of the right-to-buy applications and the sales.

Mr. Best: Does my hon. Friend agree that, apart from giving the greatest economic opportunity in the history of council housing to those whom the Opposition have always purported to represent—but has manifestly failed to do so in the past—the sale of council houses will also reduce the amount of administration and, therefore, the overhead costs of local authorities? Does he further agree that that would ensure that

the appalling subsidy that is funded by the taxpayer and ratepayer every year on a new council house would be better spent?

Mr. Roberts: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It will reduce the burden on local authorities when significant sales take place. It is of tremendous benefit to would-be purchasers who want to become owner-occupiers and have a stake in the wealth of our country.

"Patients First"

Mr. Garel-Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he has taken to improve the Health Service in Wales following the publication of the document "Patients First".

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Following consultations on the proposals in "Patients First" my right hon. Friend announced in July his initial decisions on restructuring the National Health Service in Wales in "The Structure and Management of the NHS in Wales". AHAs in Wales have been asked to submit proposals for their internal reorganisation into health management units by 31 December. Consultations on these, and on the other matters raised in the structure and management paper are proceeding—but I believe that the end result will be a better Health Service, which will indeed put patients first.

Mr. Garel-Jones: Will my hon. Friend confirm that that document has been widely welcomed in Wales and that, as a result of consultations, he expects a considerable improvement in the standard of service to patients to take place in the Principality?

Mr. Roberts: My hon. Friend is quite right. There has been wide support for our general approach, which is to bring the service closer to the patients. There are many detailed issues of great importance. We shall keep our minds open until we can review all the comments that we receive.

Dr. Roger Thomas: Is the Minister aware that the establishment of health management units, often outnumbering the districts that they are replacing below area level, is making the Health Service in Wales more undemocratic and unrepresentative than ever—hence their unpopularity in Wales?

Mr. Roberts: We have not established management units. At this stage the area health authorities have drawn up plans for establishing such units and are consulting within their areas. We have asked for the results of those consultations from the area health authorities and from other bodies by the end of the year. No decisions have yet been taken.

Mr. Alec Jones: Will the Minister give some indication of the number of representations received by the Welsh Office advocating the establishment of a regional health authority in Wales? Is he aware that many people have made representations to me indicating that such a body would be a genuine improvement in the democratic control of the Health Service?

Mr. Roberts: I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman the precise number of representations made for a regional health authority. Whatever may be its advantages, the right hon. Gentleman must realise that it would add a completely new tier to the National Health Service in Wales. There are certain cost disadvantages to that, as he knows only too well.

Job Creation

Dr. Ifor Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many people have been employed in job creation schemes in Wales in each year since his Department assumed responsibility for the schemes.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Since July 1977 the total number has been almost 29,800 in job creation schemes. Including schemes for job preservation and work experience and training, the special employment measures package as a whole has benefited almost 200,000 in Wales since July 1977. I shall arrange for year by year figures to be provided in the Official Report.

Dr. Davies: Is the Minister aware that the need for a job creation scheme is greater today in every part of Wales than it has ever been? Will he give an assurance that he will exert all his energy and priorities towards the creation of that scheme, especially to solve the grave problem of unemployment amongst youngsters?

Mr. Edwards: Yes, Sir.

Sir R. Gower: When my right hon. Friend considers that problem, will he pay special attention to the analogous problem concerning the decline of apprenticeship opportunities in the Principality and the need for continued expansion of industrial retraining?

Mr. Edwards: In my answer to a previous question I confirmed the importance of the youth opportunities side of the programme. We envisage the development of that as central to our policies, and leading increasingly to job training for young people, especially those in the 16 to 17 years age group.

Mr. Wigley: Will the Secretary of State say whether the figures that he has announced include the temporary short-time working scheme? Is he aware of the great misgivings in Wales about the probable ending of the scheme on 31 March? Will he discuss that matter with his colleagues in other Departments because of the strong feeling among companies in Wales that there could be massive redundancies when the scheme ends?

Mr. Edwards: The figures include the temporary short-time working scheme. They include all the schemes in the general package of measures. I agree that all the schemes have made their contribution. We are weighing up their cost effectiveness. We wish to place our emphasis on the youth opportunities programme. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment expects to make a statement in the near future.

Mr. Best: Will my right hon. Friend continue to press for an expansion of the youth opportunities programme to help youngsters into something more akin to a vocational training programme, which should encompass not only those who have left school but those still at school so that there is the necessary transition from one to the other? Does he accept that by talking to employers he will discover that much needs to be done by way of Government initiatives to ensure that youngsters are given adequate general training so that they can have better prospects for future employment?

Mr. Edwards: I am sure that that is the direction in which we should be going. During an earlier answer I emphasised the importance that I attach to getting training right, particularly in the high


technology area. When we visited companies in that sector in the United States, we got a clear message that the greatest incentive which we can give towards the

July to December 1977
1978
1979
1980 to September


Job Creation Schemes
…
…
…
…
1,186
7,493
14,511
6,592


Total Special Employment Measures Package
…
12,900
32,900
44,400
108,200

Economic and Industrial Regeneration (Report)

Mr. Ray Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what response he has made to the report of the joint emergency conference of the Welsh Counties Association and the Council for the Principality, held in Cardiff in October, regarding the need for Government action to regenerate industry and the economy in Wales.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I have given careful consideration to the recommendations in the report and I have agreed to meet a deputation from the conference.

Mr. Powell: Is the Secretary of State aware that the conference consisted of a number of Tory-controlled councils at county, borough and even community level? They expressed the opinion that the Government should take a close look at the regeneration of industry in Wales. Now that the TUC and CBI at national level have come out against the Government, should not the Government seriously consider the effects which their policies are having on Wales? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I share the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) that the right hon. Gentleman should at least stand up for Wales against his colleagues in the Cabinet and fight to ensure that there is regeneration of industry before we go right over the brink?

Mr. Edwards: We are not only looking at the need to regenerate industry; we are also taking a considerable number of positive measures in that direction and have announced substantial public spending in Wales with that object in view. The conference had specific proposals to put to the Government, and I have agreed to meet a deputation to discuss them.

Mr. Hooson: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the defeat of inflation

creation of a high technology industry in Wales is the development of training programmes in that area.

Following is the information:

would be a most important contribution towards the establishment of a firm foundation for a strong Welsh economy?

Mr. Edwards: I agree that that must be our central objective. Of course, it is a total myth to assume that that represents an alternative to saving jobs. The fact is that the rising cycle of inflation over the years has increasingly destroyed more and more jobs. If we were to take that apparently easy way out, at the end of the day we would end up not only with higher inflation but with much higher unemployment.

Mr. Barry Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman concede that a jobs chasm already exists in Wales? Will he bear in mind that in the area of Deeside in my constituency nearly 8,000 people are out of work? When will he give Deeside a major jobs project?

Mr. Edwards: I am aware of the serious nature of unemployment on Dee-side. I am paying a visit to the area on 24 and 25 of this month to discuss the problems with the local authorities and others involved. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that during our United States visit we spent a great deal of time talking about the attractions of Deeside and the neighbouring areas. A number of potential investors are keenly interested in the area's attractions. We shall obviously do everything in our power to make sure that that interest is translated into firm projects.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the policies of the Labour Party for regenerating Welsh industry consist of leaving the EEC, to which two-fifths of our exports presently go, and import controls, which would dry up the flow of investment funds that come to Wales from abroad?

Mr. Edwards: That is absolutely right. We identified more than 50 United States companies with a real


interest in inward investment in Wales. I think that perhaps between a dozen and two dozen of those represent a 50-50 chance of landing firm projects in the next 12 or 18 months. I do not believe that any of them would be interested in setting up plant in Wales if it were not for our membership of the EEC.

Mr. Alan Williams: Is the Secretary of State aware that not since the days of Hitler has so much industry been destroyed in Wales? As he looks at the daily and growing casualty list of bankruptcies and redundancies, at a time when the rest of the Government are beginning to waver and preparing the way for a U-turn, does he feel no guilt, as one of the keenest monetarists in the Cabinet, that all this suffering and destruction has proved to be in vain?

Mr. Edwards: I have never been a great observer and follower of any specific, extreme economic theory. [Hon. Members: "Oh"] But I have always observed one basic economic fact which applies just as much to countries as it does to individuals. That is that if one lives beyond one's means and tries to spend more than one creates in wealth one lands in a mess. The fact is that at present we are facing the problems that confront us because we have grossly overspent and paid ourselves more than we have earned. If the right hon. Gentleman encouraged people to lower their wage claims, and not to claim more than they produce, he would make the greatest contribution that he could towards restoring the economic position in Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Alan Williams: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be about the only person in the country who does not realise that the Government's contrived high interest rates and the high value of sterling have destroyed more jobs than have high wages.

Mr. Edwards: It is the continual and irresponsible encouragement of high wage settlements by the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues that is not only destroying jobs but companies and public services as well.

Blaenau Ffestiniog (Floods)

Mr. D. E. Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will visit Blaenau Ffestiniog to view the flood damage.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Neither my right hon. Friend nor I plan to do so in the immediate future. As the hon. Member knows, Welsh Office officials met Meirionydd district council and others on 31 October to discuss all aspects of the recent floods, and I have received a full report.

Mr. Thomas: Does the Minister accept that that disappointing reply reflects the Government's lack of concern about the serious situation which exists? Can he give an assurance that in Meirionydd the Government's public expenditure policy will not prevent the spending of the £200,000 which is required to restore the situation to the pre-flood position? Can he also give an assurance that the expenditure of another £350,000, as a minimum spending for remedial work on storm drains and so on, will be put in hand with the assistance of his Department.

Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman must believe me when I say that the absence of a visit from my office does not show a lack of concern. He will know that under section 138 of the Local Government Act 1972 the local authorities have powers to alleviate the effects of flooding and to assist those affected. Under the Land Drainage Act 1976, they also have powers to carry out flood prevention works. Grants of up to 50 per cent. of the cost of approved local authority land drainage schemes are available, and my right hon. Friend will consider an application from Meirionydd district council as sympathetically as possible.

Mr. Garel-Jones: My hon. Friend will be aware that there are many large slate tips in the area of Blaenau Ffestiniog. Can he reassure the people who live in that area that those slate tips are safe after the considerable floods that have occurred?

Mr. Roberts: I can assure my hon. Friend that the quarry waste tip above the town is stable. That assurance has


been given to me by the mines and quarries division of the Health and Safety Executive.

Quangos

Mr. Delwyn Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many non-departmental public bodies to which his Department nominates members have been abolished since June; and how many are scheduled for abolition in the near future.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Two. No other body is scheduled for abolition in the near future.

Mr. Williams: I find that answer disappointing, especially as our manifesto commitment is to run down quangos, both in the United Kingdom as a whole and in Wales in particular. I am also disappointed that more progress in that direction has not been made. I am equally disappointed to note that in the Broadcasting Bill, which we shall be discussing this afternoon—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's disappointment is undoubtedly very real, but he must ask a question and get over it.

Mr. Wiliams: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the fact that seven more mini-quangos, which will affect Wales, will be created in the Broadcasting Bill?

Mr. Edwards: My hon. Friend referred only to bodies that have been abolished since June. Three or four other bodies were abolished in the period prior to that. If he has views to express on the Broadcasting Bill, I have no doubt that he will seek to catch your eye later, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Anderson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman remember that when he was in opposition he was accustomed to criticise the "gravy train" in political appointments to public bodies in Wales? Given the latest appointments to the Welsh Development Agency and other bodies, does he still persist in that view?

Mr. Edwards: I have been vociferously attacked for appointing a number of leading Socialists, for example, to the Cwmbran development corporation and to

other bodies. I have appointed at least one ex-Plaid Cymru parliamentary candidate. I think that I have appointed a fair cross-section of political interest. If I have also succeeded in appointing a few Conservatives, I make no apology.

LIVE THEATRE

Mr. Robert Atkins: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will undertake a study of the effects of taxation, local authority rates and other imposts upon the live theatre.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): I do not think that a formal study would give value for money. These matters are kept under review with the professional organisations and Government Departments involved.

Mr. Atkins: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the British theatre is one of the greatest theatrical centres in the world, if not the greatest, and makes an intellectual, cultural and financial contribution to Britain? Does he not agree that it is dying on its feet because of the imposition of VAT on theatre tickets?

Mr. Macfarlane: I agree with my hon. Friend's analysis of the role and importance of the British theatre to our heritage and culture. But, despite a number of observations from various theatrical organisations and the Royal Shakespeare Company, there is no indication that various impositions of taxation over the last 10 or 15 years have had any direct effect or bearing on the situation.
It is important that all those who are engaged in the theatre should look closely at their community to make sure that they are enlisting the support and sponsorship of all those who might help. It is also of crucial importance that those who are engaged in mounting productions should ensure that the productions are totally acceptable and wanted by the community.

Mr. Tilley: Does not the Minister accept that that answer will be regarded as complacent claptrap by those who are currently involved in the theatre, who are painfully aware that the combined effect of VAT and the recession on people's ability to buy theatre tickets is visible and disastrous?

Mr. Macfarlane: The hon. Gentleman overstates his case when he talks about economic claptrap. The Arts Council grant has been increased by about £10 million this year, which should be defrayed by the Arts Council into the various agencies that expect grant support. But at the same time the theatres must put on good productions, become more self-financing, and look to the community that they seek to serve. They are not doing that in every case.

Mr. Jessel: Is not the impact of tax on the theatre compounded by the fact that television is able to offer higher fees, not only to actors and actresses, but to playwrights? In view of the national importance of the theatre and of concerts as a magnet to tourists, is there not an economic case for giving them special tax relief?

Mr. Macfarlane: I have no doubt that if my right hon. Friend considers that there are special cases for providing tax reliefs he will communicate those views to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I accept his analysis that in the past 15 or 20 years there has been a change in the entertainment that people require, and undoubtedly television and other forms of art have become strongly competitive. But the theatres must look to their communities and to their productions, and they must reach out to the community.

Mr. Faulds: Will not the hon. Gentleman listen to that rare creature on his Benches—the chap with some cultural feeling—and take his advice? Will he not try to get his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who understands these matters, to approach his Treasury friends—if I may use such a misnomer, and if indeed he has any—to get VAT lifted from the live theatre, which is one of the immediate ways in which he could help this vital cultural activity?

Mr. Macfarlane: I think that I should make sure that every hon. Member understands that there is not just one hon. Member with cultural experience on this side of the House. They are legion behind me, and I hope that the House recognises that. With regard to discussion between Departments and the analy-

sis of the reasons for and the definition of problems, those matters are constantly under review, and a dialogue takes place frequently.

THE ARTS (PUBLIC INVESTMENT)

Mr. Canavan: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is satisfied with the amount of public investment in the arts.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Leader of the House of Commons and Minister for the Arts (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): Naturally I should like to see more public investment in the arts, and this continues to be my objective. However, I am satisfied with the public investment made to date.

Mr. Canavan: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that public investment is essential in order to encourage variety of expression in the arts and that it should never be used as an instrument for political blackmail, to try to shut people up? Will he therefore ignore the Philistine demands of the ambitious Southend crawler who wants to stop the Arts Council from giving grants to certain theatre companies because they are understandably critical of the worst Government and worst Prime Minister that this country has ever had?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Those are fighting words. As usual, the hon. Gentleman has hit out in all directions and has missed most of his targets. I am certainly in favour of increasing investment in the arts, whether from public or private sources. I do not beleive that it is the job of a Minister responsible for the arts to be a censor. The responsibility for the way in which the money is spent belongs to the Arts Council by its constitution. I have no plans for changing the balance between myself and the Arts Council.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I have no idea as to which Southend Member of Parliament the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) was referring. Will the Minister at least condemn the activities of the Arts Council in supporting groups that exercise political discrimination in their employment policies by advertising for Socialist actresses?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not wish to condemn anyone. Under its constitution there is a duty on the Arts Council to decide how to dispense public money. It would be highly undesirable for Ministers to start intervening in the day-to-day administration of the Arts Council. If there is a cause for complaint that is drawn to my attention, I, in turn, draw it to the attention of the Arts Council, which investigates it. It is the responsibility of the Arts Council, and that is essential to the preservation of freedom of the arts from political interference.

Mr. Faulds: Will not the right hon. Gentleman be frank and honest enough to admit that, however effective his exhortations, commercial sponsorship will only ever provide a fraction of what is needed for the life of the arts in this country? His responsibility is to increase the public funding of the arts. Will he do so?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State pointed out to the hon. Gentleman, the Arts Council grant has been considerably increased this year by £10 million, or 20 per cent. I encourage private sponsorship, not as a substitute, but as a welcome addition to support by the Arts Council. I am glad to have the support of the hon. Gentleman in both my campaigns. With his support we are bound to succeed.

Mr. Neubert: Apropos public investment in the National Theatre production "Romans in Britain", will not my right hon. Friend at least tell Sir Peter Hall that there has always been an audience for gratuitous brutality and violence or throwing Christians to the lions, and that full houses are no guarantee of artistic merit, dramatic integrity or continuing public support from the taxpayer or the ratepayer?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I saw the play "Romans in Britain" in anticipation of Question Time today. I saw it in the course of duty. I thought it was an extremely bad play, scatological and somewhat offensive, but I do not believe that it is a case for suppression or censorship. Unsuccessful attacks on books or plays serve only to raise sales. When will we learn that lesson? After all, we learnt it first in 1877 when the first tract on birth control called "The Fruits of Philosophy" was attacked in the courts. A few hundred copies were sold at the beginning of the case, and by the end of the case 120,000 copies had been sold. Attacks on "Romans in Britain" at the National Theatre have only one tangible effect—that is, to fill that theatre.

Mr. Buchan: While we all applaud the fact that we have here one shining light opposed to censorship, may I express the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not go too far in saying that he will not condemn anyone? He could start by making an exception in the case of his hon. Friends the Members for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) and Romford (Mr. Neubert). Surely the point is that there is a means within his grasp of dealing with public investment, and that is by getting the Treasury immediately to abolish value added tax in the theatre, as most of Western Europe has already done.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I would certainly welcome that decision if it were reached by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I shall not set out on the path of condemnation. There is the highest authority for saying:
Condemn not and you shall not be condemned.
I commend it to the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) in his present travails.

FIREMEN (INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE)

Mr. Merlyn Rees: (by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the industrial action being taken by the Fire Brigades Union.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr William Whitelaw): I understand that on Friday negotiations in the National Joint Council for Local Authorities' Fire Brigades were adjourned at the request of the employees, side to enable them to consider a pay offer which had been made to them on behalf of fire authorities. The executive council of the Fire Brigades Union is meeting this afternoon. Meanwhile, firemen in most brigades have indicated that they will answer only emergency calls, and some say that they are "working to rule". Since responses continue to be made to emergency calls, there appears at this stage to be no significant additional risk to the public from the present action, but the situation will be kept closely under review.

Mr. Rees: Will the Home Secretary say what is meant by a "significant" risk to the public? Does the Home Office know how many men in the brigades are involved?
Will the Home Secretary confirm that at the beginning of last week the local authorities agreed to the 18.7 per cent. pay increase, based on the formula agreed during and after the last strike? Did the right hon. Gentleman ask the local authorities not to honour the agreement made? Did the Government interfere in any way in the course of last week?
Does the Home Secretary recall that during the last dispute in 1977 I informed the House that the then Government accepted
that a formula for the proper remueration of the Fire Service should be established … the Government for its part would be prepared to see a defined relationship between the pay of the qualified fireman and that of other workers"?
Does he recall that I also said that it would
give the firemen an agreed and assured basis for their pay in the longer term"?—[Official Report, 8 December 1977; Vol. 940 c. 1651–2.]
Will he confirm that he agreed with it and that certainly the firemen believed

that they had had a commitment from the Government, particularly when, at the beginning of the strike, the then Prime Minister said:
We must recognise that the fireman is in a different position to other people. We rely on them and I am prepared to pay them a bit more.
Why do not the Government honour that agreement so that we can end this strike, which is quite different in kind from the one three years ago?

Mr. Whitelaw: When I refer to a "significant" rise in the risk to the public I mean exactly what I say. I believe that most brigades in the country are taking some form of action.
Did I intervene? No, Sir. Did the Government intervene? No, Sir.
I equally think that we are all entitled to say that at the present time, when the private sector is losing jobs and holding down wage increases very severely—in
some cases giving no increases at all—it is essential that there should be a firm restraint on any increases in the public sector. I believe that the House recognises that. That is the position.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does the Home Secretary believe that the firemen will lose a great deal of public sympathy if the work to rule is employed in such a way that the arrival of appliances at fires is delayed and life is put at risk? What does he intend to do if the work to rule is applied in such a way that life is endangered?
Will the Home Secretary also give us some indication of what recent annual awards have been made to firemen?

Mr. Whitelaw: My hon. Friend's first point is a matter for the members of the Fire Brigades Union. No doubt it is something that the union will be considering this afternoon at its meeting.
The Government will keep the situation under review and take whatever action should be necessary, as all Governments have in the past.
I have not the exact figures, but the firemen, in line with the formula, have had significant rises in the last two years.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Is the Home Secretary aware that those of us who supported the 10 per cent. position during the last strike did so on the basis that it


was applying equally to the public and private sectors? Does he agree that the way to deal with this matter fairly is to see some return of the national prices and incomes board?

Mr. Whitelaw: Bearing in mind the position in the private sector, and its wage increases at the present time, I should have thought that there was a widespread feeling in this House that it is essential to have a very firm grip on wage increases in the public sector as well.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Does the Home Secretary accept that, whatever the Government's intentions towards the public sector, the firemen desisted from strike action last time in the belief that there was a firm promise that they would get a substantial rise, and that that promise has been betrayed? Does he not appreciate the difficult situation that that is producing both for the firemen and for the Government?

Mr. Whitelaw: As the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) knows very well, this was an agreement made between the local authority employers and the Fire Brigades Union. The discussions are still going on. The talks have been adjourned, and it would be quite improper for me, when I have no part in the negotiations, to comment any further.

Sir William Clark: In view of the fact that, as my right hon. Friend said, the private sector is slimming down, is he satisfied that there is no overmanning in the fire service? Does he realise that if the fire service were to be cut by 10 per cent. the wages could be increased by that 10 per cent., and that, together with the 6 per cent. on offer, that would make 16 per cent.?

Mr. Whitelaw: These are matters for the local authorities, which are the employers of the fire brigades. I have the responsibility in regard to the inspector of fire services and the safety of the public. That I have to honour.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a private notice question. I propose to call two hon. Members from each side before I call the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does not the Home Secretary realise that by leaning on the local authorities to betray an agreement that was solemnly reached he is doing tremendous damage to industrial relations in this country?
e
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that his statement today lays the blame for any loss of life, or damage done to property as the result of the dispute, fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Government?

Mr. Whitelaw: Governments are always responsible in these matters, and, of course, one accepts the responsibility. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would realise that.
Let me make perfectly clear that this was an agreement—and it is important for the House to recognise that it is still the subject of discussion—between the local authorities as employers and the Fire Brigades Union.
The hon. Gentleman talks about my leaning on the employers. No. What the Government did was perfectly plain and clear. The Government set out the cash limits for the local authorities in regard to pay. How the local authorities operate within those cash limits is a matter for them.

Mr. Stanbrook: Will my right hon. Friend consider the point that if the firemen were to give up the right to strike—as in the case of the police—it might be possible to arrive at a special status for them with regard to pay and conditions?

Mr. Whitelaw: My hon. Friend has raised another question, which is not before us, because the firemen have not given up that right.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Is the Secretary of State aware that it is often said that there is honour among thieves? When shall we have some honour among members of the Government?

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman can be rude if he wants to, but I really do not mind.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: At the next meeting of the NJC, if it agrees again to the 18·7 per cent. payment on the basis of a formula put to this House, which would


prevent any strike action in the future, would the Government allow it to be paid?

Mr. Whitelaw: That is a matter for the employers. As the right hon. Gentleman knows—he negotiated the agreement—the Home Secretary has no part in it. If the local employers come to that agreement, of course, they will be entitled to carry it out.

Mr. Ioan Evans: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have just heard from the Home Secretary about the firemen's pay dispute. Is it in order for a major issue relating to pay policy for 4 million workers to be dealt with in a written answer to a question which was not on the Order Paper? It was added to a question tabled by the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown) relating to the recommendations of the commission on pay comparability. In addition to the written answer that we had on Thursday, although no hon. Member had any inkling that there was to be any statement by the Treasury, on Friday we had a further answer by the Prime Minister to another question relating to the question which was answered on Thursday.
If we are to have an immediate U-turn by the Government on pay policy, as both the Prime Minister and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury were answering questions on Thursday should they not have taken that opportunity to inform Parliament at that time. It is shocking.

Mr. Speaker: I allowed the hon. Gentleman full time to make his statement, but he will realise that it is not a point of order on which I can rule, because Ministers are responsible for their own answers.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It was not a point of order, because I cannot rule on it.

Mr. Atkinson: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Home Secretary said that what happens in the fireman's wage bargaining has nothing to do with him so long as the bargainers keep within the cash limits. Will you, Mr. Speaker, or some other person from the House, send that message to the bargainers so that they clearly understand the position?

The bargainers have had no notice that the Home Secretary is saying that they can bargain for whatever figure they like as long as it is within the cash limits.

Mr. Speaker: I was equally generous in allowing the hon. Gentleman to put that point of view.

INTERNATIONAL COMPUTERS LTD, WINSFORD

Mrs. Dunwoody: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the announcement by International Computers Ltd of the impending closure of its factory at Winsford, Cheshire, with the consequent loss of 1,500 jobs.
The matter is specific, because ICL—a company jointly owned by the Government, English Electric, General Electric and Vickers—has announced the closure just when it has been awarded a major contract to provide a giant computer for the Inland Revenue which I believe would have more than safeguarded the future of the Winsford factory.
The matter is important, because Wins-ford, since it was made a special development area, has bent over backwards to provide the conditions in which ICL could operate by building 1,500 houses, of which only half were occupied, and sterilising a major factory site for the use of that particular firm.
The matter is urgent because the loss of 1,500 jobs in an area where unemployment is already at 11 per cent. and the only other large employer, Metal Box, is due to close at Christmas with the loss of 500 jobs, many of them directly affecting my, constituents, would push unemployment up to 15 per cent. by the spring.
This is a death blow to Winsford. I have just learnt that the men's bitterness is such that they have today occupied the factory, and I submit that the House has a special responsibility to air their grievances as urgently as possible.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As Winsford is in the heart of my constituency, and as I have taken steps today to raise this urgent and important matter with the Secretary


of State for Industry and the owners of ICL, I submit that an application under Standing Order No. 9 is not a suitable method of dealing with the matter.

Mr. Speaker: Order.
The hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) gave me notice this morning before 12 o'clock that she would seek to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that she thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the announcement by International Computers Ltd of the impending closure of its factory at Winsford, Cheshire, with the consequent loss of 1,500 jobs.
The hon. Lady will know that the House has instructed me to take into account the several factors set out in the order but to give no reasons for my decision.
I listened with deep concern to the facts that the hon. Lady outlined to the House, and I know that the House will consider them to be serious, but I have to rule that her submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit her application to the House.

BRITISH STEEL CORPORATION, WORKINGTON

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the decision by the British Steel Corporation to announce 826 redundancies in the Workington constituency to take effect in the Distington foundry, the pig iron producing section of the Moss Bay complex and in the management, staff and service departments of BSC Cumbria's Workington operations.
The matter is specific because of the impact that these redundancies will have not only on the inflated register of unemployed which already exists in my constituency and which demands urgent attention by the Government, but because the effect of these redundancies will be severely to undermine the local economy, local services, businesses and the rate income of the local authority.
The matter is important, because these redundancies must be seen in addition to a number of other closure announcements and redundancies which have already been made in West Cumbria over the last 16 months, which include 750 previous BSC redundancies, the closure of BIP Maryport, Fisher Controls, Bata Footwear, Courtaulds, K Shoes, Textured Fibres and redundancies at Sultra, West Cumberland Fashions and High Duty Alloys—all in my constituency.
The matter is urgent, because the local authority, the county authority, the trade unions, local industrialists, the political parties, the industrial development lobbies and, most important, the unemployed themselves demand that action be taken by the Government to create work for people who have only the prospect of the dole queue before them if this decision by BSC is allowed to go ahead.
I earnestly hope that the House will afford time to debate this highly important matter.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member gave me notice this morning before 12 o'clock that he would seek an emergency debate to discuss
the decision by the British Steel Corporation to announce 826 redundancies in the Workington constituency to take effect in the Distington foundry, the pig iron producing section of the Moss Bay complex and in the management, staff and service departments of BSC Cumbria's Workington operations.
The House will have listened with deep concern to what the hon. Member stated about his constituency, but it knows that I am requested not to give any reasons for my decision.
I listened with concern to the hon. Member, but I must rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you had any request from the Leader of the House, who is still in his place, to make a statement on the 6 per cent. pay limit for public service workers which was announced on Friday? I know that you have no power over the matter, Mr. Speaker, but clearly Parliament has some authority in the land and should have an explanation from the


relevant Minister. It is not good enough that Parliament should be trampled on in this way. Will you use your influence to try to make the Government more accountable, because for Parliament to be treated to written answers containing statements of major importance of that character is to treat elected representatives with contempt?

Mr. Winnick: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. What puzzles many of us is the fact that the question of a 6 per cent. pay policy is being widely debated outside Parliament. It is the subject of a great deal of discussion in the media and among ordinary people, but in the House of Commons we do not seem to have any opportunity of discussing it or of having a statement from the Government. On such an important matter of public policy, surely it should be the first requirement of the Government that they should state their policy so that the House of Commons knows what is going on. Why should we have to take our information from the press?

Mr. Foot: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) and for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), and particularly in the light of the facts underlined a few moments ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans), I think that the way in which the Government have made this announcement is one of the most extraordinary that I have ever heard of in the history of the House of Commons. Some of us thought that possibly there would be some

attempt by the Government to remedy the situation today.
Is it really the case that the Government have made no representations to you, Mr. Speaker, about making a statement to the House on this matter? I should have thought that the Government, hearing these questions, would recognise that they should come to the House tomorrow and make a statement on the subject in order to remedy the situation, which apparently they are prepared to condone today.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This will be the last addition to this point of order.

Mr. Atkinson: Do you recollect, Mr. Speaker, that in his statement to the House a few moments ago the Home Secretary contradicted what was said in written answers last Friday? Therefore, is it not now necessary for a Government spokesman to put a clear point of view? The Home Secretary said today that there was no 6 per cent. limit, and that the bargainers negotiating an agreement with the firemen could fix what figure they liked so long as it was within the global amount set by the cash limit. Therefore, the Government are now under an obligation to clarify their position, in that if the Home Secretary is saying—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have got the hon. Gentleman's point. I have received no request concerning a statement—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame"]—and the way in which the Government answer questions is a matter for them.

Orders of the Day — BROADCASTING BILL

Lords amendments considered.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): I understand, Mr. Speaker, that it might be for the convenience of the House if all the amendments on the fourth channel in Wales were taken together. I think that they all raise the same point. I hope that the House will agree that that is the best way to proceed. If the House agrees, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to all the amendments concerned at the start.

Mr. Speaker: I think that it will probably be for the advantage of the House if we take together the following Lords amendments: No. 1, No. 2 to No. 11, No. 15 to No. 17, No. 26 to No. 30, and Nos. 33 and 34.

Mr. Whitelaw: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to the House.

Clause 2

PRELIMINARY

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 14, after "shall" insert "subject to section A and".

Mr. Whitelaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The House will be aware that in the Bill as it left this House provision was made for Welsh language programmes to be shown both on one of the IBA's channels and on one of the BBC's channels. This was what has become known as the two-channel solution for Welsh language television broadcasting.
I recognise at once that when this matter was debated in this House and when these amendments were debated here, there were Opposition Members who believed that the Government were wrong to persist in the two-channel solution and that we should adopt the single-channel solution. During the recess my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I received a deputation led by a very distinguished ex-Member of

this House, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos. This deputation invited us to consider allowing all Welsh language television programmes to be broadcast on the fourth channel. This has become known as the single-channel solution. They acknowledged that there might then be the possibility of subsequently reverting to the two-channel solution.
Whatever the merits of the two-channel solution, as a response to the substantial body of moderate opinion in Wales, and indeed, recognising what had been said to us in this House, as was entirely proper, my right hon. Friend and I concluded that we should accept the proposition that was put to us.
In the Bill as it left this House the IBA was responsible for the fourth channel service throughout the United Kingdom. A consequence of the change of policy is that a Welsh fourth channel authority should be established to be responsible for the fourth channel in Wales. These amendments therefore make it clear that so far as Wales is concerned the duties laid on the IBA in clause 2 are overridden by the subsequent provision that we are to discuss in new clause A, which would make the Welsh fourth channel authority responsible for the fourth channel in Wales. The responsibilities laid on the IBA under part II of the Bill are thus restricted to the provision of the fourth channel service in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The House will therefore recognise that the first amendments are essentially paving amendments—a series of amendments that give effect to the change of policy to which I have referred. It may therefore be convenient to the House if I deal with all the other amendments in detail, but, of course, in the same speech.
The first amendment is to clause 3, page 4, line 5. I have already explained that the series of amendments that we have received from the other place about Wales will have the effect of placing responsibility for the fourth channel in Wales on the new Welsh fourth channel authority. This amendment accordingly removes that responsibility from the IBA. The definition of the term "for reception in Wales" is now included in the general interpretation clause by virtue of the amendment to page 22, line 22, to which I shall subsequently refer.
New clause A is central to our change in policy. It provides for the operation of the fourth channel in Wales by the Welsh fourth channel authority. It relieves the IBA of the responsibilities that the Bill previously placed upon it regarding the fourth channel in Wales. I am certain that this is the only effective way of achieving a proper service. The programmes will come mainly from the BBC and the IBA's Welsh contractor, together with some from independent producers. It must, however, be clear where the ultimate responsibility lies. By virtue of this amendment the Welsh authority will have a clear responsibility for scheduling the whole of the programme service on the fourth channel in Wales.
New clause B, together with the schedule—Provisions as to the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority—sets up the Welsh authority. It will consist of a chairman and four members, to be appointed by the Secretary of State. In practice this will be by the Home Secretary after consultation with the Secretary of State for Wales. It will be possible by this membership to recognise the interests and responsibilities of the BBC and the IBA. I have it in mind, for example, to appoint the BBC governor for Wales and the IBA member for Wales to the new authority. I think that there may also be advantage in appointing somebody from the board of the IBA's fourth channel subsidiary. From the preliminary consultations I have had with the BBC and the IBA, I believe that the broadcasting authorities also see advantage in some cross-membership of this kind.
New clause C sets out the main functions of the Welsh fourth channel authority. I have stated clearly on a number of occasions that I expect between 20 and 22 hours a week of Welsh language programmes by the time the fourth channel in Wales comes on the air. Of these, I expect the BBC to provide 10 hours, the IBA's Welsh contractor at least seven hours, and the balance to come from either the IBA's Welsh contractor or from the independent producers. I know that both the BBC and the IBA want my expectations to be fulfilled. Although the programmes will come from these sources, this new clause makes it clear that their scheduling will be a matter

for the Welsh authority. I know that both the BBC and the IBA are determined to make these new arrangements work, and I am sure that all the broadcasters working together will be able to provide the sort of service that we all desire. Some cross-membership of the sort to which I have referred will in my view facilitate the arrangements.
4 pm
The Bill does not insist that peak viewing time be devoted entirely to programmes in Welsh. The period between 6.30 pm and 10 pm, for which special provision is made in subsection (2), adds up in itself to 24 ½ hours a week. Quite apart from this, there are programmes in Welsh that ought to be shown at other times. Children's programmes, to which I know Welsh-speaking viewers attach a great importance, need to be shown during the day time. Some events, including sporting events, gain from being broadcast when they are taking place. Neither do I think that we should forget the needs of shift workers and others at home during the day. Thus, if some hours of Welsh language programming have to be deducted from the total available for these reasons, it is evident that we cannot guarantee that sufficient programmes will remain to fill peak viewing time. But it is the clear duty of the Welsh authority to ensure that, within these constraints, the bulk of what is seen between 6.30 pm and 10 pm on the fourth channel in Wales is in Welsh.
Subsection (3) provides that when the fourth channel in Wales is not showing Welsh language programmes it should normally show whatever is being shown on the fourth channel elsewhere in the United Kingdom at that time. This is the simplest and cheapest way of providing the English language programmes that will be necessary to make up a full service on the fourth channel in Wales. It also minimises the deprivation of those in Wales who wish to see programmes on the United Kingdom fourth channel. But I acknowledge that it may not always be practicable or desirable to stick to the contemporaneous showing of what is on the United Kingdom fourth channel service.
The two programme schedules may not always dovetail together, and some different arrangement may be needed to


bridge the gap between the end of a Welsh programme and the convenient start of one in English or, of course, vice versa. Moreover, there may occasionally be programmes in English of special interest to people in Wales, whether repeated from the fourth channel service or from some other source, which merit a place on the Welsh fourth channel. Accordingly, the Welsh authority is not prevented from showing something other than the United Kingdom fourth channel service contemporaneously, even though it is normally expected to show that service.
Subsection (4) lays on the Welsh authority similar general duties to those placed on the IBA regarding its service.
New clause D provides for the sources of programmes in Wales, other than advertisements, to be broadcast on the fourth channel in Wales. I have already explained that the bulk of the programmes will be made by the BBC and the IBA's Welsh contractor, although it is my hope and expectation that some programmes will come from independent producers.
Sub-sections (1) and (2) place a duty on the BBC to supply a proportion of the programmes in Welsh, of at least as much as the BBC would itself broadcast in Wales had the new arrangements not been in being. These programmes will be provided free of charge to the Welsh authority.
I will take into account the cost of these programmes in assessing the level of the television licence fees in future, as my predecessors and I have done in the past. Indeed, when I announced the present level of fees last November I specifically mentioned that in setting those fees I had taken into account, among other things, the need to enable the BBC to prepare to increase its Welsh language television broadcasts by the autumn of 1982.
I should make it clear that the BBC's charter includes an obligatiion to provide for the distinctive culture, language, interests and tastes of people in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The corporation, in consequence, already provides programmes in the Welsh language. The cost of these programmes, like all other minority programmes, whether in respect of language or regional or national minority interests, has been taken into account

by successive Governments in assessing the level of the television licence fees to enable the BBC to discharge its obligations to provide a comprehensive broadcasting system for the whole of the United Kingdom.
The corporation was already planning to increase the number of hours of the Welsh language television programming that it provides, and the cost of that increase should be no greater because the programmes are to be shown on the fourth channel. It is unlikely that there will be any significant additional cost to the BBC as a result of the special arrangements for the fourth channel in Wales.

Mr. Leo Abse: If I have understood the right hon. Gentleman correctly he is suggesting that no additional cost will fall upon BBC Wales, because the Welsh language programmes it is presently producing will go over to the fourth channel. Surely there will be a yawning gap, because he expects BBC Wales to look after English-speaking Welshmen, too. That gap should be filled not by pap from America but from material locally and indigenously produced in Wales for English-speaking Welshmen. How will it be possible for that to be done if there is not to be an increase in costs?

Mr. Whitelaw: Nothing that is proposed in the new arrangements that we are making changes the BBC's initial position. The BBC will have the same responsibilities as under a two-channel solution. Those responsibilities remain under the one-channel solution.
Sub-section (3) deals with the arrangements for the supply of Welsh language programmes by the IBA's Welsh programme contractor. In this case the programmes will be supplied to the Welsh authority on commercial terms. By this I mean that the contractor will have to negotiate with the Welsh authority payment for the programmes that he supplies. A subsequent new clause deals with the finances of the authority. Finally on this clause, subsection (4) provides that there is nothing to prevent the Welsh authority from obtaining programmes in Welsh from any other sources. This is, of course, primarily, directed towards the independent producers.
New clause E deals with advertising. It is, of course, right that advertising


should be sold on the fourth channel in Wales as it is in the rest of the United Kingdom. This clause provides that the IBA's Welsh contractor will have the right to provide advertisements for transmitting on the fourth channel in Wales. It also makes the necessary provision for liaison between the Welsh authority and the IBA to enable these advertisements to be properly scheduled.
The clause provides, however, that no advertisements will be permitted during BBC programmes. They can, however, be transmitted before or after a BBC programme if the corporation consents. The BBC has told me that it will be willing to agree to such scheduling of advertisements. It is, however, concerned that there should be an interval, which may be brief, separating a BBC programme from an advertisement. It has indicated that such an interval might take the form of a presentation item about subsequent programming. I am confident that sensible arrangements will be made by the broadcasters to ensure that the advertising revenue on the fourth channel in Wales, which I acknowledge is likely to be limited, will not be unduly diminished by this provision.
Clause F, together with schedule B—Modifications of main Act etc. in relation to fourth channel in Wales—modifies a number of provisions in the IBA Acts of 1973 and 1978 in relation to the fourth channel in Wales. Effectively these ensure that the duties and responsibilities that lie with the IBA in relation to ITV and the fourth channel elsewhere in the United Kingdom will be applied to the Welsh authority in relation to programmes broadcast on the fourth channel in Wales. I am sure that the House will agree that the general framework under which our broadcasting authorities operate is satisfactory and that it is appropriate that it should apply also to the fourth channel in Wales.
As for new clause G, both the BBC and the IBA have a number of advisory bodies that provide them with very valuable advice and ensure that they are in close contact with public opinion, both generally and on specific matters, including, for example, education. It is right that the Welsh authority should have similar advice, but it may not be necessary for the authority to set up its

own advisory bodies. This clause therefore empowers the authority to set up such bodies but also makes it clear that it may use the  existing bodies of the IBA and the BBC when those authorities consent.
New clause H provides that the IBA shall pay to the Welsh authority sums sufficient to cover its reasonable expenses. I have already indicated that the BBC will provide the Welsh authority with programmes free of charge. The expenses that remain to be covered are essentially those of Welsh language programmes from the IBA's Welsh contractor and from independent producers, of the English language programmes that will complete the service, and of the necessary administration.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Before the Government changed their mind about the fourth channel it was said that the additional cost could be as much as £15 million. Will the right hon. Gentle-can give the House an assurance that the purpose of the provisions is to provide a sum of that magnitude?

Mr. Whitelaw: I have already spoken about the BBC and the licence fee. That has been accented. I shall now deal with how we expect the IBA and the television companies to play their part in financing Welsh programmes. I will say a little more about this in relation to the next new clause. It was the IBA's intention, had it retained responsibility for the fourth channel in Wales, to make allowance for the cost of Welsh language television programmes produced by its Welsh contractor when setting the rental that the contractor should pay. This reduced rental wou'd, of course, have been made up by enhanced rentals paid by the other ITV contractors. In this way there would have been a hidden subsidy by the ITV system as a whole for Welsh language programmes.
Responsibility for the fourth channel in Wales is now placed, by these amendments, on the Welsh fourth channel authority, and that authority will now buy programmes on a commercial basis from the IBA's Welsh contractor and, of course, from independent producers. It is therefore open to the IBA not to provide for any sort of hidden subsidy. I could require each of the ITV contractors to pay an appropriate amount, which in


total will be the sum that the IBA pays over to the Welsh authority to meet its reasonable outgoings. That answers the hon. Gentleman's point.
The new clause also provides for the Welsh authority's accounts, and requires it to prepare an annual report and statement of account to be laid before both Houses of Parliament.
New Clause I enables the Secretary of State, in this case myself, to have regard to the increased cost of the fourth channel in Wales when setting the rates of the levy. I shall, after consultation with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, discuss details of the financing of the Welsh fourth channel with the IBA. I should, however, reiterate that this clause enables me to have regard to any increased costs that arise from the fourth channel in Wales when setting the rates of the levy.
New clause J refers to part III of the Bill as it left this House. The clause establishes a Broadcasting Complaints Commission. I am sure that the House will agree that it is right that programmes provided by the Welsh authority should be within the remit of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. The new clause empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations to achieve this. It is preferable to do this by regulations, because the responsibilities are slightly complicated. I have already made it clear that the Welsh authority will be responsible for the scheduling of programmes on its service. It would therefore be right for it to be a party to any complaint that might arise from one of those programmes. But some of those programmes will be supplied by the BBC, and the corporation would also have the same responsibility. Similarly, some of the programmes in the English language shown an the fourth channel in Wales will be those shown on the fourth channel elsewhere in the United Kingdom under the authority of the IBA. In those cases the IBA would also have some responsibility. The regulations made under this clause would take account of these somewhat complex responsibilities.
4.15 pm
On new clause K, I indicated earlier that the representations made to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and myself acknowledged that pro-

vision should be made for the possibility of subsequently reverting to the two-channel solution. The new clause makes the necessary provision. Before reaching any decision to revert, the Government would have to be satisfied that there was widespread demand for a change and that such a change would be in the interests of Wales as a whole, and of the Welsh language.
In reaching an assessment, the annual reports that the BBC and the IBA and the Welsh authority are required to make will be available. They will contain of reflect the views expressed by each authority's relevant advisory bodies. In addition, each authority is charged with ascertaining public opinion concerning the programmes broadcast and encouraging public comment, and the results of this will be made available. Any other expressions of public opinion will, naturally, also be taken into account. Even then a decision to change could be implemented only by an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
There must be a fair period of trial, perhaps of the order of three years, before such consideration could be given to a change. This clause would enable any order, which, as I have said, would be subject to affirmative resolution, to reestablish the provisions in the Bill as it left this House, together with those further amendments that I undertook to make before deciding to revert to the single-channel solution. Those were to require the BBC and the IBA to consult about programme content, to ensure that there was a unified service of Welsh language programmes, albeit on two channels, and also to provide for the establishment of a Welsh language television committee.
I now turn to the Lords amendment to leave out clause 20. Clause 20, as it left this House, provided for consultation between the BBC and the IBA on the scheduling of their Welsh television programmes, and also provided for the appointment of an adviser for cases of difficulty. This clause has, of course, been overtaken by all the amendments that gave effect to the single-channel solution and is no longer necessary.
I now refer to amendments Nos. 26, 27 and 28, which affect clause 30. These amendments to the interpretation clause


of the Bill are consequential on the more substantial amendments that I have already explained to the House.
When I referred to new clause B, I explained the need for the appointment of a Welsh fourth channel authority. New schedule A makes detailed provision about the membership and administration of the Welsh authority and is modelled closely on the provisions that applied to the IBA. As I have explained, new clause F provides for the modification of the IBA Acts of 1973 and 1978, in respect of the fourth channel in Wales. New schedule B sets out those modifications in detail. The two amendments to the long title are consequential on all these amendments in respect of the fourth channel in Wales.
I hope that this explanation of the detailed provisions that I propose for the fourth channel in Wales will have assisted the House. I have not gone over the arguments for either the single-channel or the two-channel solution. Different opinions can be held in good faith about what is proper or best for the Welsh language, or for broadcasting. Nevertheless, I believe that my decision—I know all the old arguments—to revert to the single-channel solution is right. Once I had taken it, I naturally believed it to be right. The IBA is already working towards the provision of the fourth channel service by the autumn of 1982. Wales has been given priority in its engineering plans. By then it hopes to achieve 90 per cent. coverage in Wales, as opposed to 80 per cent. coverage in other parts of the United Kingdom. Its present plans will continue to increase the coverage of the channel in Wales as well as elsewhere. I must, however, make it clear that problems will remain about reaching all communities in hilly areas, and that must apply to Wales as well as to other parts of the United Kingdom. Nevertheless. I hope that these new proposals, which were urged upon me and which I have now accepted on behalf of the Government, will provide a service that is generally accepted throughout Wales.

Mr. Alec Jones: The Home Secretary has given us his explanation of the Government's about-turn and I do not dissent from his description of it as complex. The right hon. Gentleman

assured us that his decision was the right one, but I put it to him that it would still have been the right one if he had made it some months ago.
Many of us have heard a number of calls from Wales for U-turns in a whole range of Government policies and we have always received the reply "The lady's not for turning." On the provision of the fourth channel in Wales, we have the unique position of not one U-turn, but two. The first U-turn was the Conservatives' election promise, which was broken. There has now been another U-turn and the Government have come back to the original proposal—the single channel. That was the second U-turn and it is all the better for that. I welcome the change and I look forward to many more.
The Home Secretary will appreciate that the single channel proposal was favoured by the Labour Party. We expressed it in our election manifesto and confirmed it on Second Reading and on Report during the passage of the Bill and in the Welsh Grand Committee. At that stage the Government would not listen and I noted with interest that the Home Secretary said that it was right and proper for him to take into account the views expressed by hon. Members in the House. When we discussed the matter on 24 June, 15 Welsh Members either spoke or intervened in such a way as to make their views clear. Of those, two were in favour of the Government's proposals—one from the Labour Benches and one from the Conservative side. Eleven Members, representing all four political parties, were against the proposal and two hon. Members could have been classified as doubtful.
The hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) said that he did not feel deeply on the question whether it should be a one or two channel solution. He could fairly be described as one who was sitting on the fence. At about 10.10 pm on 24 June the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) advised the Government to ponder carefully. That was wise advice, but the hon. Gentleman pondered so carefully that within less than two hours he had jumped back into bed with his colleagues and voted for the foolish Government proposition. The only Conservative Member who came out of the debate with


honour was the hon. and learned Member for Denbigh (Mr. Morgan).
In addition to the representations made by hon. Members in that debate, a whole range of representations were made to the Secretary of State for Wales and the Home Secretary from a number of outside organisations and people. They culminated in the deputation led by my noble Friend Lord Cledwyn, the Archbishop of Wales and Sir Goronwy Daniel. I am grateful to them, but I can hardly believe that any one of those three distinguished gentlemen was able to add greatly to what had already been said on the matter. I am not disparaging those gentlemen; I am merely indicating the deafness that seemed to afflict the Government at that time.

Dr. Roger Thomas: We must not forget that one of the three men who visited the Home Secretary stated afterwards that he had been in favour of the two-channel solution and changed his mind because he was afraid of what would occur in Wales if there were only one channel.

Mr. Jones: I read some of the reports and I hope that the Government did not change their mind for that sort of reason. Nothing would do more damage to democratic government than that proving to be the case. I am grateful to the three gentleman who saw the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Wales if they played any part in bringing about the change of mind. After all, that was the objective of most of us.
However, the Government's late action still causes me some concern. It was originally hoped that we could establish the fourth channel in Wales before it was established in other parts of the country. We had a strong claim, because we are the only part of the country with the problem—if it can be so described—of two languages. If the fourth channel had been established in Wales earlier, it would have been much easier to persuade and encourage Welsh listeners and viewers to turn their aerials back from watching the English channels. The delays may have jeopardised the about-turn having the effect that we desire.

Mr. Whitelaw: There will be none of the delays to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. Everything depends

on the passing of the Bill, and we shall have the fourth channel in Wales as soon as the Bill gets through.

Mr. Jones: I assure the Home Secretary that I shall do nothing to prevent the passage of this part of the Bill, though I cannot commit my right hon. Friends on the remaining portions.

Mr. Abse: Is not my right hon. Friend saying that, contrary to the proposals of the Labour Government, this Government are not bringing in the fourth channel for Wales before the fourth channel for the rest of the country? The consequence is that whereas the original intention was that people should turn their aerials to HTV Wales and BBC Wales for English programmes about Wales, the lure now will be to continue to have aerials turned towards the English fourth channel. By the delay, the Government may have sabotaged the possibility of programmes from BBC Wales and HTV Wales being watched by the people of Wales.

Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend has spelt out in detail the point that I was beginning to make. Since he has done so with far greater eloquence than I could manage, I shall leave the matter there. It was a tragedy that the Government virtually ignored the overwhelming views of Welsh Members. That did not do a great deal to enhance parliamentary democracy.
I shall not go through all the amendments, but I wish to ask some questions about new clause B, which provides for the Welsh fourth channel authority, with a chairman and four members, appointed, as the Home Secretary confirmed, by him in consultation with the Secretary of State for Wales. Is there any reason why the appointments could not be made by the Secretary of State for Wales, in consultation with the Home Secretary if necessary? It is important to ensure that those who serve on the authority are fully in touch with Wales, and it is a reasonable proposition that the Secretary of State for Wales would be more in tune than the Home Secretary with such people.
I have become so bemused by all the subsections and amendments that I am in some difficulty. Is there to be an annual report from the Welsh fourth channel authority? That would be important,


because then the views of the authority could be taken into account in deciding the long-term future for fourth channel broadcasting in Wales.
What is the significance of amendment No. 5, which deals with the status of the Welsh fourth channel authority? It provides that the authority is not to be considered as a Crown body and I wonder whether that will inhibit it.
4.30 pm
As for new clause C—the Home Secretary emphasised that most programmes betwee 6.30 and 10 pm will have to be mainly in Welsh. That must mean that at least two hours per day, or 14 hours a week out of a possible 20 or 22, must be in Welsh between those hours. That leaves six hours before 6.30 or after 10 pm. The Home Secretary described the possible difficulties for daytime children's broadcasting and the broadcasting of sporting events. Perhaps insufficient flexibility has been retained since broadcasting on Saturdays, Sundays and school holidays in the Welsh language will be needed outside those hours if we are to meet genuine needs. How can I be satisfied that sufficient flexibility is provided for? New clause D relates to finance. Many Welshman are interested in finance, particularly those in Cardiganshire, but cost was always considered a factor in these decisions and many of us thought that it might have been the factor which caused the Government to change their minds after they published their manifesto.
I understand from the Home Secretary's speech that the BBC will provide the fourth channel programmes free of charge, that the IBA will pay the remainder of the authority's reasonable expenses, with some topping from independent producers, and that the IBA will raise the money from ITV contractors. I think that the right hon. Gentleman also confirmed that he would be able to take account of the cost of the fourth channel in Wales in deciding the rates of levy.
It was announced in another place that discussions were taking place between the Home Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Is further information available on those discussions? It seems to us on this side—not just to my party—that the costings have not been suffi-

ciently spelt out. Many people want to know whether a realistic estimate of the cost is available, how much of it will come from which quarters, and what effect this arrangement is expected to have on the levy.
I hope that new clause K is the provision which will allow the reversion by order to the second channel proposal. I believe that the Home Secretary said that that would be possible after perhaps three years.
It is reasonable to expect some teething troubles in setting up the fourth channel network in both England and Wales, irrespective of the language issue. I therefore wonder whether three years is a fair or reasonable period, since Wales will have additional difficulties.
I recognise that a decision to revert would be made subject to the affirmative resolution—

Mr. Whitelaw: In both Houses.

Mr. Jones: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. Such a decision would be a matter of major concern in the House and in Wales. I should have thought that a reversion would need more than the affirmative resolution procedure and that there should be provision for a full debate. I hope that the reversion "permit" will never be used, and that we can carry on as we start and make a tremendous success of this development. Whether it succeeds or not will depend greatly on all those involved, so it is incumbent on those of us who have called for this solution and those who will be working in it to make the single channel work and to make it efficient, in everyone's interests.
I shall not recommend my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the amendments. It is clear that most hon. Members welcome the Government's second chance of mind and that most people in Wales, so far as one can measure them, support this proposal. I do not pretend that I have counted them. There may be different results in different areas, but I believe that more people favour the proposals in the amendments than were ever likely to have supported the proposals which came before the House earlier this year.
I wish the new authority well in a difficult task—one made more difficult by the


Government's U-turn. The Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Wales have been on a difficult journey on their road to Damascus, but they chose the route themselves and if any stones are thrown they have only themselves to blame for any discomforts and embarrassments that they encounter along the way.
We welcome the Government's change of heart, which is in the best interests of the Welsh language and of those who watch and listen to programmes in Welsh or English. We hope that this will be but the first of many U-turns.

Mr. Delwyn Williams: It may come as a surprise to some of my colleagues, but I shall support the Lords amendments. I share the view that, following the double U-turn, everybody in Wales should try to make it work. I will deal with the history only so as to comment briefly on how this turn-around came about.
It seemed to me, as a democratically elected representative of the Government, that they paid too much attention to the so-called "three wise men" who came from the West and bore not gold, frankincense and myrrh but tidings of civil unrest. Unfortunately, they were not English-speaking Welshmen—they were all Welsh-speaking Welshmen—they were not representative, and they were not democratically elected. I was saddened, as a recently elected Member, that more notice was taken of them than of hon. Members of this House.
But that is water under the bridge. Many of us thought that the Government were seen to give in to blackmail by the Welsh nationalists. We still believe that, but we accept things as they are.
My main criticism of the turn-around is based solely on economic arguments. It is estimated that in five years the single channel option will cost £138 million, for an audience at peak times estimated at 75,000. That cannot make economic sense.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Is the hon. Gentleman quoting figures produced by HTV?

Mr. Williams: They are the IBA's figures, which, I think, are to be relied upon. I shall continue to quote the IBA throughout the debate, if necessary.
Bearing in mind the current state of Wales, with rising unemployment and with the rate support grant being cut, we in Powys would like just £1 million of that £138 million to be donated towards all the people of Wales and not just to a select minority. It is this which has made many of us oppose the Bill from time to time.
Let us consider what is likely to happen. We Conservatives have been trying to reduce the number of quangos. The Bill sets up seven more mini-quangos. I should like an assurance that these so-called representative and advisory bodies will be staffed proportionately. Will they be staffed by all Welsh-speaking people? I hope that the powers-that-be will make sure that English-speaking Welshmen are represented properly on these advisory bodies.
I should also like an assurance that Teletext, which is provided for in the Bill, will not be an all-Welsh Teletext. Who will benefit from that, I wonder, and what will be the cost of that innovation?
Are the Government aware that many English-speaking Welshmen will be very angry in the future when, having put Wales on one channel so that they can forget about the Welsh language, they suddenly find that they cannot receive those popular English programmes put out on ITV2 in the rest of the United Kingdom. There will be a tremendous backlash, and I hope that the Government will be prepared to receive it as and when it happens.
Are the Government aware that in the past 12 years HTV has had 50,000 advertisements, only 20 of which have been in the Welsh language?
The Welsh language must be the paramount consideration of the Welsh people. I adhere to the view that the Welsh language will be the main sufferer if we confine it to the ghetto of one channel. That is also the view of the IBA, which feels frankly that the Welsh language will suffer. One has only to consider the experience of sound radio. In South Wales, where Radio Cymru is broadcast on an all-Welsh basis, the listening figure is only 1 per cent. I cannot feel that the Welsh language will prosper in such conditions. It would be far better if, after three years of this experience, both Houses of Parliament reversed this procedure.
My view on clause 10 is, I think, shared by the majority of Welsh people, although it is dangerous to say that because we all think that we speak for the majority. However, judging from my postbag in the past few months I feel that I do. I express the hope that when the silent majority make their views known the Government will respond to the majority view with as much alacrity as they did recently to the views of the militant minority.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: I am pleased to be called immediately after the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Williams). I am also pleased to know that he now supports the Government's policy. I hope that he will be prepared to support it in the Division Lobby at the end of this debate should such an eventuality arise. His change of heart about the fourth channel issue will, I hope, be followed by changes of heart on other issues that affect our respective constituencies.
The hon. Gentleman quoted a number of figures that were of interest to the House. After an intervention, he indicated the source of one of them. However, he did not tell us the source of the other, and that was the figure that he gave for the number of listeners that Radio Cymru had in the South, of only 1 per cent. I do not know where the 1 per cent. is supposed to be located, but the hon. Gentleman did not give the basis of the figure. As far as I am aware, BBC Wales publishes no audience research figures. I have had arguments about this with the BBC because, in my view, it should publish those figures. Such figures have to be on the basis of a formula of listeners, of course, and, as a result, audience research figures for the whole of the United Kingdom are often suspect. When we talk of audience research on the basis of 1 per cent. of the United Kingdom—the half million Welsh speakers—that is problematic in statistical terms. I am certain that, on reflection, the hon. Member for Montgomery will wish to intervene later and withdraw that figure.
This debate sees the policy of Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg, the Welsh Language Society, and Plaid Cymru being legislated upon at last, in that there will now be a Welsh fourth channel authority. In this case, the Government have gone much further than their predecessors were

prepared to do. In their OBA policy the previous Government did not envisage a separate—if I may use the word—authority for Wales for Welsh language programmes. They envisaged a subsidiary committee of the Open Broadcasting Authority. Now there is to be a full authority with all that that word entails in a statute. We on the Plaid Cymru Bench welcome it warmly.
4.45 pm
I do not wish to dwell on the events that led to the change of policy. It is a fact that if the Home Secretary had accepted the invitation given him last year by my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) and me to come to Aberystwyth just after he made his Cambridge speech, he would have realised, at that first national broadcasting conference, what was the extent of feeling in Wales. Had he been able to make the trip to Aberystwyth he might have been able to produce these changes earlier.
The fact that the changes are produced now gives broadcasters in Wales and the audience of Welsh broadcasters an opportunity to get on with the job of communicating with each other, which is, after all, the purpose of broadcasting.
I welcome this debate because it is the end of the debate in this House. Now we can get on with the job of providing an adequate service in the Welsh language. We also have the opportunity now, as the Chairman of the Select Committee on Welsh affairs, the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), will want to say, of providing a parallel service in the English language for the majority culture in Wales. Wales has two national cultures and two national languages, one of which is English. Therefore, it is essential that through the medium of English there should be a parallel development of the kind of service that we see developing through the medium of Welsh.

Mr. Delwyn Williams: indicated assent.

Mr. Thomas: I am glad to see that I take the hon. Member for Montgomery with me on that, at least.
I want to ask a series of specific questions about the various clauses before us. First, I should like to have confirmed what was made clear in another place by Lord Belstead, namely, that the Welsh


fourth channel authority will have responsibility for all programmes appearing on that channel in Wales. I should like it confirmed, in other words, that its responsibility in terms of scheduling will be not only for the Welsh language material but for all other programmes shown on that channel.
That matter is crucial to the next one, which is about scheduling and rescheduling. This is dealt with in clause 5(3). The Home Secretary said that it would normally be the case that when Welsh language programmes were not being transmitted the programme broadcast would normally be the same as the programme or one of the programmes broadcast on the fourth channel in that period for reception otherwise than in Wales.
I do not suggest that the Government should reconsider the clause, but I think that through the medium of rescheduling we can get over many of the difficulties referred to by the hon. Member for Montgomery about people being deprived of the channel 4 United Kingdom programmes. All we need is the permanent operation of one video tape recording machine in Cardiff, which will be able to take the output of the United Kingdom channel 4 undertaking and reslot it into the fourth channel in Wales if it is not possible to carry the programme when it appears originally on channel 4 covering the United Kingdom. This happens already in relation to BBC1 and BBC Wales and between HTV, the present independent contractor, and network programmes. The question of alternative scheduling within Wales of United Kingdom programmes going out at other times on United Kingdom channels as a whole is not a real difficulty. I hope that there will be flexibility in the implementation of the new clause so that the rescheduling can be the full responsibility of the authority set up under the Bill.
My next point concerns the emphasis that seems to be emerging in present discussions on the role of the BBC and of the independent contractor. It seems that the role of other programme sources, namely, independent producers, is being gradually pushed out. The formulation of the words that apply to independent producers is in the negative. The new clause states:
Nothing in this section shall be taken to preclude the Welsh Authority from obtaining

television programmes in Welsh from the BBC and the TV programme contractor.
It is essential that the whole attitude of the authority, at least in its operation if not in the wording of the legislation, should be more positive towards independent producers. I express my concern about what the Home Secretary says of the membership of the Welsh fourth channel authority. According to my understanding, the Home Secretary intends lo promote—if that is the right word—the BBC's national governor in Wales, Mr. Alwyn Roberts, to membership of the Welsh fourth channel authority. I do not begrude Alwyn Roberts that honour. The right hon. Gentleman is also going to promote the IBA member for Wales, Professor Emeritus Hugh Maurice Jones, to membership of the Welsh fourth channel authority. Nothing was said about the other places.
There are to be four members plus a chairman. The Home Secretary indicated that one of the places might go to a member of the IBA fourth channel board. That means, according to my calculations, a majority for the IBA on the committee. At least, it is a potential majority when it is not known who is likely to be the chairman. I should like the Minister to indicate who will represent the great Welsh public and who will be the representative, if any, of independent producers.
It seems to me that there is a danger that the Welsh fourth channel authority will end up perpetuating the duopoly in Welsh broadcasting rather than allowing greater public participation and independent participation in the control of the working of the authority. I put it to the Home Secretary, and also to the Secretary of State for Wales when advising him on membership of the authority, that there should be not more than one representative of the BBC and not more than one representative of the IBA. I do not see the need for the fourth channel board to be represented. If the fourth channel board is represented as well as the IBA, the commercial contractor for Wales will want to be represented by the front door, as he has been represented by the back door during our debate on this issue. If the independent contractor and major contractor wish to be represented, independent producers will wish to be represented.


Who then represents the voice of the consumer, the listeners and viewers and the broadcasting unions? The membership on the authority should have the right balance from the start.
I turn now to the balance of programmes. The Home Secretary, in his initial remarks, has been reticent about the role of independents. He mentions a 10-hour output from the BBC and a 7-hour output from the independent contractor. The rest, he said, would come from the IBA contractor or independents. That gives the possibility of a further five hours from the IBA contractor himself. I shall wish to say more about that contractor and his role in Wales.
It is essential that the Home Secretary and the authority, before it is set up, should realise the tremendous potential that exists in Wales for independent producers. The nature of broadcasting in Wales has been that of an export industry. A number of personal friends of mine can be found at Shepherds Bush and with other companies in London. They have come out of Wales to work in television in the United Kingdom, in the United States, and even, occasionally, in the Third World.
Wales has exported people because of a lack of opportunity to develop talent and resources within the duopoly system. The setting up of this authority should be seen as an opportunity for the independent producers, for the small consortia of independent producers, for community video, and for small-scale programme makers to take advantage of the funding available to produce programmes that will come from alternative sources and from alternative places. Why should broadcasting in Wales be Cardiff-dominated?
I am sure that I take the hon. Member for Montgommery with me in what I say. Why cannot we have production centres developing outside Cardiff? HTV, now that it is bidding for renewal of the franchise, has dramatically opened a centre at Mold, although I am advised by regular viewers that the centre has not yet provided a balanced output in the HTV flow of programmes. Mold is a small centre, but there must be room for other production centres in Wales, taking advantage of the cultural developments in specific areas.
I think immediately of Blaenau Ffestiniog, with its small community video output. At the moment, it does not have broadcasting standard equipment. The setting up of the authority should be seen as an opportunity to develop a nationwide network of community television in Wales operating in the same way as the regional opt-outs of Radio Cymru, which has given broad coverage in North and West Wales. Therefore, I stress the potential of independent producers and the role that they can and must, play and also the strength that they can give to the system. Independent producers have already indicated to the IBA that they could provide immediately three and a half hours a week of the 12 hours of programmes that would be required from the independent side for the fourth channel.
An important question that arises concerns the financial position of independent producers. If there is to be an adequate flow of programmes ready for the time when the channel comes on the air in 1982, there is a need to ensure that independent producers are able to invest in new equipment. That is difficult with current high interest rates, artificially maintained by the Government. There should be a means of advancing to reputable independent producers, on the basis of work they have already done, sums from the IBA to enable them to develop their technical facility and also to provide a stockpile of programmes that will be ready for the time when the channel comes on the air.
5 pm
Linked with that is the question of training. In the long debate about the fourth channel in Wales one thing about which I think we have generally agreed on both sides is the need for improved training in order to improve the standards of Welsh language television. We have often complained about the standard of programmes, and about the continuous talking head programmes in which too many of us have taken part. I see that the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Dr. Thomas) agrees with me. We have often criticised the standard of the programmes and said that the reason for the low standard is lack of funding.
That is only part of the reason. Reasons are lack of adequate training; lack of development of a school for film


and video within Wales; lack of development of a Welsh film industry, which has concerned many of us in the House over the years; lack of development of video skills within Wales, and the fact that so many of those skills have been exported from Wales. Therefore, the training facility is essential.
It was a matter of deep concern to me to see the independent contractor in Wales withdrawing funding for training from an academic department with which I had some small involvement last year. In the build-up to channel 4 it is essential that training be given priority, both internally within the BBC and for those who will take part in the programmes produced by independents.
I come finally and appropriately to the question of funding. I am glad that the Home Secretary is now adopting the funding system first proposed at the national broadcasting conference in Aberystwyth in September last year. It is that the funding for the BBC proportion should be borne by the licence fee, as it is already, and that the second part should be borne by the levy. It is absolutely right that the present two funding mechanisms for the duopoly, the two forms of broadcasting in the United Kingdom, should be applied equally to fund Welsh language programmes. Incidentally, all of us are gladly paying the licence fee these days. I say that in view of a certain event that takes place in a certain part of my constituency tomorrow.
The whole of the licence fee levied on all licence fee payers throughout the United Kingdom will then pay for the minority service in the Welsh language. That is right. A minority speaking a minority language—whether it is Welsh, an Asian language, or whatever—has a right to expect the majority culture, through its funding resources, to be prepared to support it.
On the other side, we talk about the profits of the ITV system and the levy that accrues to the Government. That form of funding also should find its way to support minority programmes. In that sense the Govenment are at last coming to a clear way to fund channel 4.
However, two matters concern me—here I refer to clause H—as to exactly how financial provision will be made. We are told that the IBA will pay the Welsh

authority. Presumably the two bodies have been negotiating and will come to an agreed figure. We are told that if they do not agree the Secretary of State may determine
such sum or sums as appropriate for that purpose.
The "Secretary of State" is presumably the Home Secretary. Whence will the sums come? Is it right that they will come from IBA funding? If so, is not that a rather circular way of dealing with the issue?
In fixing the overall levy, the Treasury will no doubt bear in mind the additional cost of Welsh language programmes. Then the levy from the IBA system as a whole, accruing to the Treasury, will be recycled to the IBA in order to pay for channel 4 United Kingdom as a whole. A component of that will be the cost of Welsh language programmes. I presume that the IBA will discuss with the Welsh fourth channel authority the amount of funding that it will need, and therefore at a further stage the Secretary of State will intervene again to ensure that the passage of those funds is adequate.
I hope that my understanding of that recycling is correct. I see that the Minister of State dissents, so I look forward to his correction of my interpretation of how the funding will operate. I turn to the role of the contractor in Wales. I have often been attacked both in the press in Wales and on their own channel by the directors of HTV. At the end of our contribution to the long debate in Wales about the fourth channel, I take this opportunity to reply to the views put forward by that contractor. HTV has always been opposed to the creation of a Welsh broadcasting authority. The contractor told us in a booklet sent to so-called opinion leaders in Wales on the eve of our conference in Aberystwyth that a Welsh broadcasting authority was completely unworkable. It said:
To begin with, what would it be responsible for? Could it have any meaningful authority over half of one channel in the event of all Welsh language programmes being on the fourth channel? Could it have any meaningful authority over the Welsh language output of two broadcasting organisations when it would have no authority over the English language activities of those same organisations? Or is it suggested that the BBC and the independent television company should become entirely English language organisations? How


could HTV, for instance, be held responsible to a Welsh Broadcasting Authority as well as to the IBA? Similarly, how would such an authority interpose itself between BBC Wales and the BBC's central management? And to whom would such a Welsh Broadcasting Authority be responsible—to the IBA and the BBC governors or to Parliament? And if to Parliament, would it be through the Home Office or the Welsh Office? How would this affect the necessary independence of broadcasters in Wales? Would it not, in all probability, increase the pressures rather than diminish them? And what of finance—the ultimate determining factor of the volume of output, the quality of output and of our independence? All these are questions which would need to be examined with care and answered in detail before anybody could be sure that any benefits would flow from such a development.
A totally separate Welsh language television service could be funded only by direct Government subsidy, thus offending the long established and justifiably cherished principle that the Government must not be seen to pay.
I have quoted at length from the document because it is important that at this stage of the debate all those arguments should be finally refuted. The stand taken by the commercial contractor in Wales should be exposed. Throughout the debates, HTV has been prepared, in a partisan and cavalier fashion, to use its public relations machinery to try to change Welsh public opinion. Indeed, much of the explanation for the Government's initial U-turn lies at the door of HTV and its directors. Had they not tried to exert undue influence on the incoming Conservative Government when the Government were coming to their decision, we should not be wasting House of Commons time tonight. The influence of HTV in trying to undermine the consensus that existed in Welsh public opinion was insidious.
Through the medium of the House I ask the IBA—and ask advisedly—whether such a company is capable of operating within the new terms of the fourth channel in Wales. Indeed, can it obtain a new television franchise in Wales?
The company's activities are not at an end. In the Western Mail on 15 October we read the figures so carefully quoted by the hon. Member for Montgomery of a cost of £138 million for channel 4 and a run-up cost of £27 million for the Welsh channel. I should like the Minister to take the opportunity to refute the figures.

Dr. Roger Thomas: I am sure that the hon. Member would like better equipment and facilities in Cardiff, but they must be paid for. It is high time that he dropped his vendetta against HTV.

Mr. Thomas: HTV should have built new studios in Cardiff years ago. When I worked in those studios for a short time before I came to the House the accommodation was inadequate, and it still is.

Dr. Thomas: I am sure that the hon. Member is fully conversant with the facilities available at Mold, which will soon be available in Carmarthen if HTV is given a franchise again.

Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman seems to be defending HTV firmly. The facilities at Mold are coming on stream in the year when the franchise is up. The facilities in Carmarthen amount only to a film cutting room. The performance of the company, in the context of the public debate on the issue, has been totally reprehensible. It is time that the company stopped spreading misinformation in the Western Mail.

Mr. Abse: The hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) has made some severe strictures about HTV. I make no comment about them. After all, if a little less extravagantly, I have made similar comments in the past. Since HTV is to give evidence to the Welsh Affairs Select Committee and since the hon. Gentleman feels so strongly about these matters, does his party intend to become absorbed in the parliamentary process and submit evidence to the Select Committee so that it can be tested? Is that not a fair question?

Mr. Thomas: I do not wish to stray too far from the amendments. However, as the hon. Member has raised the issue I shall reply. The decision not to submit evidence to the Select Committee was taken by the national executive of my party. Of course, I abide by the decision of the national executive. Evidence was submitted by the national broadcasting conference in Welsh. We were told that evidence was not admissible in that form. Furthermore, we were told that it would not be possible to give evidence in Welsh. I certainly intended to appear before the Committee and to give evidence on behalf of the national broadcasting conference.
We must allow Welsh broadcasters and Welsh viewers to get on with the job of communicating. In that context the most imaginative and hopeful sign is the formation of an association to represent broadcasters. It does not represent BBC or HTV management. It is an attempt by the broadcasters—the people who make the programmes—to ensure that the channel works. For too long, because of the length of our debates and the U-turns that have taken place, we have prevented Welsh broadcasters from doing their work. I hope that the debate is at an end, that the channel will be set up, and that broadcasters in Wales will justify the confidence that many of us in the House have in them.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: I rise to say just a few words in this moment of maternity for the fourth channel and to add an English voice to that of my right hon. Friend the matron from Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw). I look forward to another English voice from his nursemaid the Minister of State, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan). It is a shame that in this maternity ward so few people are taking an interest apart from hon. Members who are interested specifically in Wales. As is their right, hon. Members from Welsh constituencies express their opinion about what should be done in England. It is right, therefore, that English, indeed Sussex, Members should be allowed to express an opinion about how things should be done in Wales.
I have not been able to detect whether there is a requirement on the Welsh television authority to contain in its reports all the details which are contained in other similar reports made annually to the House. It would be reassuring to know that the same menu of items must be contained within the Welsh television authority report as is required for the rest of the country. I hope that the Welsh television authority will have a duty to report on the handling of advertising in Wales in the same way as advertising is handled and reported in the rest of the United Kingdom.
I turn to a more important question which harks back to an issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for

Montgomery (Mr. Williams). I refer to the terrific cost of Welsh television broadcasting. Whether the cost is £138 million over the next five years based on 1979 prices as forecast, or whether it is above or below that, it will certainly amount to about that sum. That cost will have to be met substantially by levies on television companies operating in the rest of the United Kingdom. It will have the effect either of eroding the sums available to those television companies for programmes or will add to the cost to British industry of advertising and charges will have to be increased to take into account that levy. Either way, the rest of the United Kingdom will have to chip in a considerable amount so that Wales can have its own programmes. I hope that Ministers in the Home Office will keep a careful watch on how the price for that broadcasting may escalate in future.
The cost is more dramatic because of the projected listening and viewing which the Welsh programming is likely to attract. That is against the background of a 3 per cent. listening figure for Radio Cymru. That statistic came in evidence from the BBC to the Welsh Affairs Committee on listening in Cardiff. It has a scientific base, but refers to a limited area. If an audience of far greater size is not attracted to Welsh television programmes I hope that when consideration is given to how the broadcasting is working in three years we shall cast a beady eye on its continuation.
I turn to the question of independent producers. I have always doubted whether there is a huge body of untapped production potential in the United Kingdom which would have been given an airing under an OBA or will be given an airing under the plans for the new fourth channel. It is impossible to quantify, but I doubt whether that huge pool exists. If any doubt is cast on the pool of untapped talent in Britain, a serious question must hang over the size of the pool in Wales.
I wonder whether any thought has been give to where the producers for Welsh language programmes will be found to maintain the standards for Welsh broadcasting that we expect throughout the remainder of Britain. There is the question of training people for the new Welsh television authority. Will only Welsh


speakers be included in the training programmes, or will the company mount a language training course to provide a sufficient potential of students for television programming? There are a number of questions—some substantial, such as funding, and some about detail—that we can apply only when the television authority is in operation.
It is a good step by the Government to give this proposal a try. It is interesting to note that the Opposition Benches welcome the action taken in another place, which they are always so ready to promise to do away with. Be that as it may, it is good action by the Government to accept the plan for Wales. But let us look upon it as a test, and not as the last word on the matter. When the time comes to reconsider the matter three years from the start of broadcasting, I hope that we shall reconsider the decision taken now in the light of experience. If it is necessary to go into reverse, let us do so with equanimity, with good sense, and with no sense of remorse.

Mr. Wigley: I suspect that this may not be the last debate on this issue. However, as the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Williams) intimated in his speech, I hope that in the intervening period between now and the time for a review of how the fourth channel works under this formula everyone will direct his efforts to ensuring that the formula is a success. The last thing that we want is constant bickering in the intervening period. If, finally, matters do not work out as we hope, there will be room to reconsider, as there is on any other matter.
In the meantime, we should devote our efforts to ensuring that there is the development not only of a Welsh language service that is worthy both of the language and of Wales, but of a television service in Wales in the English language that is worthy of the non-Welsh speaking people of Wales. The argument that was dominant in commending the solution as acceptable was that by that means there would be an opportunity to serve both the Welsh—and the English-speaking communities. Now that much thought has been given on how to serve the Welsh-speaking community, there is room for a continuing discussion and argument about how to maximise the

potential of the new service for the benefit of the English-speaking people, too.
After all the discussion and arguments that have hurled themselves around Wales and elsewhere during the past few months I welcome the Government's action tonight. I am sure that the majority in Wales will welcome it also. I am sure that my party leader, Mr. Gwynfor Evans, also welcomes this. The alternative for him was rather stark.
Several questions need to be answered. One that comes immediately to mind is the starting date. We do not need to remind ourselves that economic uncertainties could affect the beginning of the fourth television service in Britain. If a hiccup holds back the service in Britain, will the Government give an assurance that they will do their utmost to get the service under the Welsh broadcasting authority started in Wales even before the channel starts in Britain as a whole? I am not asking that simply to get something for Wales that is not available elsewhere. As other hon. Members have said, practical benefits are involved. Those who are not tuning in to studios in Bristol, Birmingham or Manchester to receive the service will find that there is a service in Wales, and they will tune their aerials to Wales to gain that advantage. There is that benefit, even if it is only for three or four months. Obviously, there will be greater benefits if it is a longer time.
There is the question of financial provision. That argument reminds me of the arguments in the devolution camp last year. On the one hand there is the aggregate cost over a number of years, and on the other hand the figures are made to look as reasonable as possible. A figure of £15 million for additional cost was mentioned by the Secretary of State when he led us to believe that the service would not be available in this form. Presumably, the Government will expect that additional cost to be financed by the various means that have been described in the debate. It may appear to be an enormous sum of money. However, I put it to the hon. Member for Montgomery that it is a somewhat bizarre idea that the IBA levies should be siphoned off to help the rate support grant in Powys. He knows as well as I know that that alternative, and other alternatives, can easily be developed to give a counter argument. The spending of money of that magnitude on


a Welsh language service for 500,000 people in Wales is not an unreasonable bargain when compared with the money spent on the television service for Service men stationed in Germany, which runs to many millions of pounds. I am not detracting from the needs of those overseas, or from the need to broadcast radio programmes overseas by the BBC, the cost of which also runs to many millions of pounds and which are received in many countries and in many languages. It is not unreasonable to ask that the 500,000 in Wales should have one service, out of the four services that will be available in Wales, broadcast in the Welsh language.
Figures for listenership have been mentioned. The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) mentioned 3 per cent. I should not be surprised if the number of people in Cardiff who listen to Radio Cymru is 3 per cent. The number of Welsh speakers in Cardiff totals only 5 per cent. of its population. In my constituency of Caernarvon 87 per cent. of the population are Welsh-speaking. That was the figure at the last census, but it may have fallen a little since then. In that area the Radio Cymru service is listened to most of all. It is a popular service, which has taken over from the old BBC Welsh Home Service. It is more popular than Radio Wales, which comes through the English language—

Mr. Rathbone: I must correct the figure that I gave in my speech. It should have been 1 per cent. for Cardiff and 3 per cent. for Wales as a whole.

Mr. Wigley: I believe the figure of 1 per cent. for Cardiff. However, from my experience, I am not willing to believe the figure of 3 per cent. for Wales as a whole. That question revolves around the sampling points. If they are predominantly in the larger towns or conurbations the percentage would be low. If a proper balance is taken over the whole of Wales the percentage would be higher. It is certainly very much higher in the county of Gwynedd and, I suspect, in Dyfed. Those are imponderables, and there will be room to look at the techniques of sampling audience sizes and to monitor such matters.
The proportion of people listening to a service is not necessarily the only criterion. On that basis, what would we have

done with Radio 3 over the years? There can be justification for the service in terms of what it is putting out if it is reaching acceptable standards and achieving pre-set goals, even though a "clapometer" does not ring a bell every time a programme is broadcast.
I ask for an assurance from the Minister about the ability of the Welsh broadcasting authority to buy material from overseas. I understand from the wording in the Bill that there is nothing to preclude it from doing that. Having bought material from the independents or some other source, I assume that there is nothing to prevent the authority from selling the material overseas. I raise that point because the Welsh language is in a similar position to many other minority languages around the world. There is scope for an interplay of programmes of general interest in some of the languages—for example, some children's programmes, such as the excellent puppet shows that have come from Czechoslovakia in the past. There is room for such traffic to become two-way if we generate more of our programmes in Wales. I would be grateful for a response on that point.
5.30 pm
Another question which arises—my hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) referred to it a moment ago--is the attitude of the present contractors in Wales. I do not want to prolong a bashing campaign against HTV. but, given the attitude that it has adopted towards this solution, there is the question whether it will change that attitude sufficiently quickly to be a constructive partner in this new partnership. The attitude shown by its managing director, Mr. Ron Wordley, in letters in The Times and in statements that have appeared in the Western Mail, leave me in great doubt as to whether he will play a constructive part in this development.
Another point relates to the re scheduling of programmes. Clearly, people in Wales will not get certain English language programmes from England on the fourth channel at peak viewing times. However, there may be some programmes that they would like to receive at other times if it is possible. Will it be possible not only for the Welsh broadcasting authority to reschedule channel 4 programmes from England at


other times—I believe that that is the intention—but for the IBA to reschedule a programme which appeared on ITV2 in England on the HTV1 in Wales? By doing so that will provide a better opportunity for ensuring that people who want to watch programmes that go out on the fourth channel at other times in England can do so.
I support the plea that has been made for the possibility of studio facilities to be developed not only in Cardiff but elsewhere. In my own area of Gwynedd there is a tremendous pool of talent which can be tapped. Whether those studios are in Blaenau Ffestiniog, Caernarvon, or Bangor, there is no doubt that there is room for enhancing studio facilities in the area, which is 87 per cent. Welsh-speaking. After all, that is the area where, on a statistical basis, the talent will most likely be found.
The Welsh people have many weaknesses as well as one or two strengths. If we have any ability at all it is an ability in verbal communication, be it in terms of trade union leaders, barristers, teachers, preachers or people in television or radio broadcasting. I suspect that a pool of untapped talent can be developed. If the fourth channel helps to uncork it, and allows it to develop, it will be to the benefit not only of Wales but of others. The advent of the fourth channel service in Wales opens a new chapter and presents a tremendous challenge and opportunity. It is up to people in Wales to take advantage of that opportunity and to build something that will be of benefit not only to Wales and the Welsh language but to people who live many miles away.

Sir Raymond Gower: I join in the general welcome that has been given to the amendments. That welcome even embraces my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Williams), who has often taken a robust attitude on these matters.
The history of these matters should not be invoked to too great an extent today. However, it reveals that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and his colleagues, whatever their faults, have sought earnestly to arrive at the best possible solution in this difficult area. I do not regard the fact that they have changed their

minds as necessarily a sign of weakness. Indeed, in some ways I regard it as a sign of strength, because I have taken a different view from them all along. I was not happy about the original inclusion of this proposal in our manifesto. I did not think that it would necessarily be to the benefit of the Welsh language to have all this concentrated in one channel. Therefore, I took a rather different view from some of my colleagues.
When we were returned to office and looked at this matter more closely, I felt that on the whole we had to honour our promise, and once again I was in a minority. I am glad that I am now able to say "Yes" to what has been done. I have been fortified not by the extravagant statements of some but by the fairly widespread and respectable opinion which seems to want this sort of solution in relation to Welsh broadcasting. That opinion includes many people in Wales whose views I respect.

Mr. Keith Best: I hope that my hon. Friend will acknowledge that he was not in a minority of one which was swayed by these arguments.

Mr. Alec Jones: The silent majority.

Mr. Best: The right hon. Gentleman says "silent majority". He ought to know, as I am sure my hon. Friend will acknowledge, that although silent majorities do not always speak on the Floor of this Chamber they can often have a more significant impact behind the scenes.

Sir R. Gower: The figures quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomery appear to me to exaggerate the cost. On the other hand, I think that the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) underestimated the cost. An expensive change is being made. I do not think that we need underestimate that. We should make it known, because that is related to the extent of the challenge which is faced.
The hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas), who has left the Chamber for a moment, intimated that this debate may well be the end of the story. I do not agree. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), I think that it is the beginning of a difficult story. This is an unknown area, which is quite different from anything that has been


done before. This is a new kind of authority. It will be the first authority which has ever tried to join together the rather disparate work of the BBC and the contractors. It will be a difficult relationship.
The Welsh authority and those who supply the programmes face an enormous task. They will have to produce programmes of sufficient quality to attract an adequate or reasonable viewing audience. That will be a great task. I apprehend that the new fourth channel in the rest of the United Kingdom will be an exciting one. I think that it will produce programmes that are different from those that the rest of the United Kingdom has enjoyed. It will include programmes which I very much want to see. In many cases, it will supply quality performances for minority audiences. It may well include operatic and symphonic music and dramatic performances of a high calibre and I am sure that numerous people in Wales, despite their attachment to the Welsh language, will want to see that kind of programme.

Mr. Wigley: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman accepts that if the fourth channel screens an international operatic performance from, say, Milan—which will be a minority interest—there is no reason in the world why it cannot be introduced in Welsh on the Welsh channel, even though the singing is in Italian, German or some other language.

Sir R. Gower: The hon. Gentleman is asking for a lot. Not only does he want a fourth channel; he wants the other channels altered to suit local Welsh consumption. I do not think that that will always be possible. Those who watch Welsh programmes will necessarily be missing a good deal of the unusually interesting material that will be shown on the fourth channel in the rest of the United Kingdom. That is why I take the view that the quality of Welsh programmes must be such that they will command the continued attention and viewing of their public. That is why I submit that this is not the end of the story, as the hon. Member for Merioneth suggested. It is the beginning of a very difficult task for the Welsh authority, and for those who will supply the material. Nevertheless, it is a challenging task and I am sure that we wish the new authority, and the other bodies concerned, well. We should

not underestimate the enormity of the task that confronts them. They can succeed, but it will not be easy. I thank Ministers for the long and earnest consideration that they have obviously given to this matter, and for making changes that will involve considerable extra expenditure. I hope that it will produce something worth while, which will be justified in the event.

Mr. Alan Williams: I shall be brief by the standards of the House, and exceptionally brief by my standards. I am glad that the Government have eventually returned to the full consensus of all the Welsh parties that had been achieved prior to and sustained during the last election.
During that period we have seen not so much a U-turn as a pirouette. The Home Secretary, that Nureyev of Queen Anne's Gate, in his true-blue leotard, has been performing this complicated and mind-boggling operation. In the meantime the Secretary of State for Wales, the major culprit in the bizarre episode that we have experienced, has to stand in the corner of the Cabinet Room every Thursday, wearing his political dunce's cap.
But it is regrettable, or it should be regrettable to the House, that the lesson that has emerged from this exercise is that the Government have been ready to listen to non-constitutional representations while they have turned a deaf ear to reasoned arguments of elected Members. It is tragic that the Government's duplicity in this matter has spread a militancy that we had quenched at the time of the devolution referendum. If that militancy revives there is no doubt as to where the responsibility will lie. It is unfortunate that in order to achieve the fulfilment of a clear and unequivocal electoral pledge we have had to face political risks over the last 12 to 18 months.
I am a little surprised—I do not say that with any disrespect to the Minister of State, whose abilities we all recognise—at the fact that a Welsh Minister will not reply to this debate. I find that even more strange since, as we heard from the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Williams), the Government's only successful job-creating exercise in their first 18 months of office has been to set up the


seven quangos that accompany this legislation. However, quangos or no quangos, ambivalence or not, at the end of the day the Government have got it approximately right, and therefore we wish the channel well. There are many problems, but I genuinely believe that there is sufficient good will in all political quarters in Wales for the new channel to succeed.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Leon Brittan): I shall try to deal with as many as possible of the points that have been raised.
The Government are gratified to know that their policy in this regard, as detailed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary at the beginning of the debate, has received such a warm reception from all hon. Members—a reception that was generous and gracious, descending only to a touch of acidity in the final remarks of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams). I suppose it was too much to expect that that note could have been avoided on a matter such as this.
The right hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) asked about the possibility of delay occurring. Nothing that the Government have done, and nothing that has occurred during these deliberations can make any difference to the timing of the operation, because the Bill will reach its concluding stages in the House of Commons at the same time, whatever policy it includes in its final form.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to ask why the Home Secretary, rather than the Secretary of State for Wales, will be responsible for the appointment of the members of the Welsh authority. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made clear, the appointments will be made in consultation with the Secretary of State for Wales. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has responsibility for broadcasting, that is clearly the appropriate way in which to act.
The right hon. Member for Rhondda further asked whether there would be an annual report of the Welsh authority. That is provided for after clause 7 in new clause H(3), which will deal with the various matters covered by the report generally, and prescribed by the main Act. Advertising remains in the hands

of the IBA. It is not a responsibility of the authority, and therefore it will not be covered by that report.
I was asked about the provision after clause 7 in new clause B(3) which declares that:
the Welsh Authority are not to be treated for the purposes of the enactments and rules of law relating to the privileges of the Crown as a body exercising functions on behalf of the Crown.
The purpose of that is to make clear beyond question that the Welsh authority, like the IBA, will not be an agent of the Crown, but will perform functions on its own behalf.
I was asked about the discussions—to which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred—that are taking place with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer relating to the levy. It is difficult to give any details because no such discussions can fruitfully take place until there is a Welsh ITV contractor and sensible discussions have taken place with all the interested parties. The IBA will announce the new contractors on 28 December. Judging from some of the debate that has taken place this afternoon, one might have thought that the allotment of the franchise would be made by a vote on the Floor of the House. Rightly or wrongly, statutory arrangements do not provide for that, and I hope that the House will therefore understand that it would be inappropriate for me to be drawn into a long-running vendetta about the present arrangements regarding the conduct of the Welsh contractors.
I was also asked about the affirmative resolution procedure and the period of time after which a reconsideration of the matter would take place. My right hon. Friend indicated that about three years would be an appropriate time in which to see how matters were going. My hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) indicated what a difficult task the new authority would face, and it is right that it should be given a reasonable period to see how it gets on with that task. But something of the order of three years is what the Government have in mind at the moment.
The right hon. Member for Rhondda thought that an ordinary affirmative resolution procedure was not sufficient and that there ought, if necessary, to be a full


debate in this House. The answer is that the affirmative resolution procedure does not dictate the length of the debate. That is a matter reflecting the strength of feeling and the crowded nature of the parliamentary programme at the particular time. So I do not think that we need doubt that if a debate of that kind takes place, an appropriate period of time will be allotted to it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Williams) raised several matters. I appreciate his anxieties but welcome his support. I think that that is a view that my right hon. Friend would share to the full.
The hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) asked several questions. He asked whether the authority would have responsibility for the whole of the fourth channel in Wales and not just the Welsh language parts. The answer to that is "Yes".
The question of re-scheduling was raised by the hon. Member and by his hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley). The position is that technically there can be costs involved in re-scheduling, such as the making of tapes, and there may also be rights costs on a second showing. The provision in the new clause C(3), that the authority should normally show the contemporaneous United Kingdom fourth channel service, takes account of the fact that there are those costs. That provision is the cheapest one that could be made and leads to the least degree of deprivation, but other types of scheduling are not ruled out by anything in the Lords amendments that we are debating.
A question was asked about the role of independent producers. There must be uncertainty as to the extent of the availibility of those producers and what they will be able to offer to the fourth channel. But, as my right hon. Friend indicated, there will certainly be room for them, and I greatly hope that they will make a constructive contribution to the fourth channel in Wales, as to the fourth channel elsewhere in the country.
Questions were asked about the funding of the Welsh authority and the provision whereby the Secretary of State acts as the arbiter. Here, if I may say so, the position was not properly understood. I

think that the hon. Gentleman who raised the matter got the circular process slightly wrong in his description. What is envisaged is that one starts by assessing the cost that will be incurred in running the authority and providing the programmes for it, and the IBA and the authority will enter into discussions in that respect. If there is agreement, all well and good. If not, my right hon. Friend has to act as an arbiter. It is when that figure has been fixed—that is to say, the cost of providing the fourth channel in Wales—that the question of any consideration with regard to the levy comes into play.
The question of the role of the independent producers was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), who had doubts as to the size of the untapped talent of independent producers who would be available in practice. The extent of that pool is something that remains to be proved both in Wales and in the rest of the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend has given a salutary note of warning. All that one can do is to ensure that every scope is given to them, and that will be done both in the United Kingdom as a whole and in Wales in general.
Those were the main points raised in the debate. I hope that in the light of the answers that I have been able to give the House will find it possible to agree to the amendments that the Lords have passed.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 11 agreed to.

Clause 10

MAKING AND ENTERTAINMENT OF COMPLAINTS

Lords amendment No. 12, in page 9, line 32, at end insert—
( ) that the complaint relates to the broadcasting of the relevant programme on an occasion more than five years after the death of the person affected; or

Read a Second time.

Dr. Shirley Summerskill: I beg to move, as a manuscript amendment, to the Lords amendment, after second "the" insert "first".

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 13 and 14, and manuscript amendment No. 2 to Lords amendment No. 14, after "was" insert "first"

Dr. Summerskill: I quite understand if, now that we are approaching the hour of 6 o'clock, my hon. Friends find something more interesting to do than to discuss the Broadcasting Bill, but I am here to carry the flag for the Opposition.
I regret that the two amendments to which I shall speak are both manuscript amendments, Nos. 1 and 2, in relation to Lords amendments Nos. 12 and 14.
My manuscript amendments are the result of the Government's overloading of the legislative timetable and the mishandling of business, because the Second Reading of the Bill was not held until 18 February. We were rushed through the Committee stage, with afternoon sittings introduced by the Government, because the Bill had to be returned to the Floor of the House as quickly as possible. It was further rushed in the Lords until their Lordships objected strongly to the steamroller tactics and were given a little more time. It left the Lords only at 5 o'clock last Thursday, when it completed its Third Reading, and there were literally a few hours on Friday in which to table amendments to the Lords amendments. So hon. Members have had only today even to see the manuscript amendments and to consider what, if anything, they wish to say about them.
The manuscript amendments concern the making and entertainment of complaints. I welcome the fact that the Government have now amended the Bill to provide that the commission will be able to consider posthumous complaints only in cases where the relevant programme has been broadcast within five years of the death of the person affected.
There was great concern among historians and those who work on television programmes that the original provision in the Bill would indirectly impose serious restrictions and inhibitions on their work. These would have applied whether it was a historical or a dramatic account of the life and character of a dead person. Many examples have been given in both Houses, ranging from Shakespeare's "Henry VIII" to, more recently, a film about Lawrence of Arabia, and the television

film about the Duke of Windsor. I am glad that there is now wide appreciation by everyone, including the Government, of the serious concern felt about this matter by people who work in television.
6 pm
On the other hand, it is necessary, as I said when we discussed the matter in the House, to protect the feelings of the relatives and friends of the subject of a television programme who may have strong and justifiable grounds for complaint about the treatment of the deceased. Therefore, five years is a somewhat arbitrary compromise, but it is to be welcomed.
The two amendments seek to insert the word "first" before "broadcasting" and "broadcast". This is intended to ensure that the opportunity for complaint should not, in theory at any rate, go on for ever. As hon. Members will be aware, many television programmes, especially dramatic and documentary programmes, are repeated, and they may be based on people who have recently been alive. These repeats are broadcast sometimes a year or so after the programmes were first broadcast, and many may go into television archives for broadcasting in subsequent years. For example, "Testament of Youth" will surely be shown again many years from now.
The other purpose of the amendments concerns the fact that the clause as it stands relates to complaints about the presentation of a person who is alive at the time that the programme is first broadcast but dead when it is repeated. As Lord Gardiner said in the other place, when he was alive the dead man may have said that he did not care two hoots about the programme, did not propose to take any action about it, and thought that on balance it had probably done him good rather than harm. Therefore, we should ensure that if the person concerned has not complained when he or she has been alive, that should be the end of the matter. It should not be possible for relatives, employers and other categories of people to enter a complaint when the programme is repeated within five years of the death of the person concerned.
It is important to get this matter right, even at this late stage of this very hurried Bill. The drafting of the clause has been


criticised during the passage of the Bill in both Houses, but particularly in the other place. The terms of reference of the complaints commission are of great constitutional importance, and unless we take the time and trouble to make them fair and workable we can create serious problems for the future.

Mr. Brittan: I agree with the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) that it is right and important that we should get these provisions right, and the amendments that have been passed in another place have assisted in doing so.
I see some force in the argument that if a person decides for some reason not to complain about a programme broadcast during his life, it should not be possible for a complaint to be made about his treatment in the programme when it is rebroadcast after his death. I understand that that is the intention of the amendment. That is particularly the case if, as the hon. Lady envisaged, the person concerned expressly indicated that he had no objection to the programme.
It would be difficult to cater for that purpose in detail in the Bill, and I am advised that the amendment does not achieve it. But the Bill enables the commission to refuse to entertain a complaint if it considers that it is inappropriate to do so. I think that it is likely that the commission will take the view that it would not be appropriate to entertain a complaint about the treatment of a person in a programme repeated after his death if the programme had first been broadcast before his death and he had an opportunity to complain. It is fortunate that we have had the opportunity to ventilate that possibility so that the commission will have its mind drawn to it.
I do not accept that the Bill in its original form would have had quite the devastating consequences that it was suggested would flow from it. It is significant that the more extravagant of those suggestions were not made in Committee, and were put forward at the latest possible moment. I am satisfied that the Bill provides more than sufficient opportunities, by means of filters given to the commission, to prevent the kind of abuse that has been somewhat extravagently postulated.
None the less, there are difficulties in the adjudication of complaints on behalf

of people who died a long time ago. The argument that I find most persuasive in this respect is that it is often difficult to get at the relevant facts. Therefore, we came to the view that a compromise was appropriate and a cut-off period was sensible. Any such compromise and cut-off period are bound to be arbitrary. However, the five years that we have suggested would seem to have been broadly acceptable elsewhere and here as well.

Dr. Summerskill: I trust that the commission will note the hon. and learned Gentleman's view that it would not be appropriate to examine a case in which the person himself or herself had seen the programme before death and had not complained and will accept that that is one reason for not accepting a complaint.
I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has dealt adequately with my point about repeats many years ahead. The amendment is designed to prevent a complaint being made after, say, the tenth repeat of a programme. The idea is that one should be able to make a complaint only after the first broadcast. The hon. and learned Gentleman has not commented on that point.

Mr. Brittan: I have not commented specifically, but broadly the same considerations arise whether a person is alive or dead. I think that the commission will take into account the fact that even in the event of a complaint by a person who is alive the programme had already been broadcast many times before. It would not be appropriate to say that because the programme had been broadcast before it should be an absolute bar to a complaint. However, it is sensible that there should be a provision to allow the commission in all circumstances to consider whether it is appropriate to accept a complaint. Obviously the fact that the programme has been broadcast before will be taken into account.
The position is less strong than in the case of a dead man who, while alive, had seen the programme and approbated it. As in the law of libel, many considerations arise on the question why somebody did not complain the first time. It may not have been brought to his notice. If we were seeking to legislate specifically on this point it would be necessary to have elaborate provisions dealing with


the question whether the matter had been brought to the notice of the person concerned. In the absence of a complex provision of that kind it is wise to leave the matter to the good sense of the commission, provided that it has adequate powers not to entertain ridiculous complaints. I am satisfied that it will have such powers.
In fairness, I should point out that although the hon. Lady and I can express our views, and we may each, with due modesty, think that those views are or will be heeded, we cannot ensure that that will be so. Therefore, it would be wrong to say that we are doing more than expressing a parliamentary view. The commission will be guided by the Bill as finally enacted.

Question, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made, put and negatived.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 13 to 15 agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 16 agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords amendment No. 17 agreed to.

Clause 23

DUTIES OF AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO PROGRAMME CONTRACTS

Lords amendment: No. 18, in page 19, line 32, leave out
of more than eight years
and insert
exceeding the relevant maximum period

Mr. Brittan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 19 and 20, the manuscript amendment to Lords amendment No. 20, and Lords amendments Nos. 31 and 32.

Mr. Brittan: It may be for the convenience of the House if I use this opportunity to speak to a series of amendments made in another place—in this case those to clause 23—as the amendments are fairly closely related. I shall be happy to discuss any specific points that hon. Mem-

bers may care to raise as I move that the House agrees with the Lords in each of the individual amendments.
I would like to begin with Lords amendment No. 24, in page 20, line 8. Although it is not the first amendment to this clause on the Amendment Paper, the amendments to the earlier part of the clause concerning independent local radio contracts are in a sense consequential to this one. As hon. Members will be aware, clause 23 is concerned with the duties of the IBA with respect to programme contracts and sets out, among other things, the procedures that the authority must adopt when it is awarding contracts for the supply of programmes. These include taking such steps as seem appropriate to ascertain the opinion of the public in the area or locality concerned and to encourage the making of comments and suggestions by members of the public. The clause recognises that this will often involve public meetings.
However, we did not originally include in the Bill the requirement, which now appears as Lords amendment No. 24, that contracts should always be advertised in order that the merits of rival applicants for a contract to provide services of local radio or television in an area or locality can properly be assessed. This omission was in the knowledge that the authority intended, in the normal course of events, to put up broadcasting contracts for competitive tender. Nevertheless, it became clear during our discussions in Committee and on Report that there was widespread concern among right hon. and hon. Members about the lack of a provision in the Bill specifically requiring the advertisement of contracts. It was generally felt that the public interest, the demands of fair play, and the need for ITV and ILR services of the highest quality available all pointed to such a requirement.
Any persons or organisations aspiring to hold a programme contract should have the chance to make their case in competition with each other and with any incumbent contractor, and the public should have an opportunity of evaluating the competing bids and indicating the kind of service that they would favour. A statutory requirement to advertise the contract would also eliminate any suggestion that the authority had looked no


further than the sitting tenant when awarding a new contract.
We found these arguments persuasive, and I undertook on Report that a Government amendment would be introduced in another place to require the authority to give notice of its intention to award a contract to provide broadcasting services in any area or locality and to invite applications for the contract. Lords amendment No. 24 is in fulfilment of that undertaking, and Lords amendment No. 25 is consequential.
I turn to the question of teletext contracts. The one exception to the universality of this requirement concerns teletext contracts. Teletext is still in its early stages and it is hard to predict what future developments will be and what precise structure may prove the most appropriate for it. For that reason, we wish to proceed with caution and support the IBA's decision that in the first period of teletext contracts—the four years starting from 1 January 1982—the successful applicant for the ITV contract in any area will be awarded the contract to provide the teletext service in that area. It is not, there, fore, appropriate to apply the new advertising of francises provision to the first round of teletext contract awards, but thereafter all teletext contracts, like all ITV and ILR contracts, will have to be put up for competitive tender.
Following the decision to place an obligation on the IBA to readvertise radio and television contracts towards the end of the contract periods, it was put to us that this would weigh unfavourably against new ILR contractors. It was those representations that led to the further amendments passed in another place relating to the maximum length of ILR contracts. It is an expensive business to establish an independent local radio station, particularly now that the network is expanding into some of the less populous—and, therefore, intrinsically less profitable—areas of the country. Accordingly, a new contractor, setting up a station now, needs more time to build up an audience, and hence advertising revenue, in order to cover his capital costs and initial losses, than most of the existing contractors required. We therefore felt that is was only right to allow those ILR contracts entered into after 1 January 1980 to run for a maximum of

10 years in the first instance. The substantive change is made by the new subsection to be inserted in line 38 of page 19—Lords amendment No. 20—and the associated amendments—Lords amendments Nos. 18, 19 and 31—to lines 32 and 35 of page 19 and line 9 of page 30, are consequential.
6.15 pm
It is conceivable that in the future new ILR localities may border on places already served by independent local radio. In such instances, there may be fringe areas served by both stations, but it would be wrong, in our opinion, to discriminate against a new contractor simply because small parts of his locality were already being served by another contractor. It is clearly a matter of judgment deciding which localities fall within the contingency that I have described, and is for that reason that the IBA is empowered by sub-paragraph (ii) of the new subsection to decide on this question.
I refer finally to the amendments to insert "or locality" after "area" in clause 23. They are purely technical. Section 12 of the IBA Act 1973 refers to the programmes of an ITV contractor being provided for an "area", but to those of an ILR contractor being provided for a "locality". The amendment is therefore designed to make the wording in clause 23 consistent with the wording of section 12.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 19 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 20, in page 19, line 38, at end insert—
( ) For the purposes of subsection (1) of this section the relevant maximum period is—

(a) ten years in the case of a contract taking effect on or after 1st January 1980 for the provision of local sound broadcasts in a locality—

(i) in which such broadcasts have not previously been provided by a programme contractor; or
(ii) in which such broadcasts have previously been so provided, but only in so much of it as in the opinion of the Authority does not amount to a substantial part of it;

(b) eight years in every other case."

Read a Second time.

Dr. Summerskill: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, at end to add:
(c) Contracts for these maximum periods shall be suspended or terminated at any time by the Authority if in the opinion of the Authority the board of directors of a contractor is conducting its affairs in such a manner as to prejudice its ability to provide the public service for which it has contracted".
I should like to speak on the duties of the authority with respect to programme contractors. In view of the maximum periods for contracts of 10 years and eight years, which have been introduced through a Lords amendment, my amendment seeks to include in the Bill, and seeks to repeat in addition to what is in the main Act, a specific power for the authority to suspend or terminate a contract at any time.
Ten years is a very long time for a contract period in radio, and eight years is a long time for a contract in Independent Television. Over the years an entirely new situation will be faced by radio and television. Great changes can take place during these years. In the first place, commercial interests, such as video discs, cassettes, pay cable and satellite transmissions, will expand rapidly. Another possible change of circumstances is that when a board of directors of a consortium is set up at the end of this year, when the new ITV contracts are awarded, although the board may seem united and purposeful, in four or five years time there may be deep divisions within the same board on the question where its best financial interests lie or where the primary trading interests of large shareholders lie. What was once a common interest may become a disparity of interests. The viewers could be served less well than they deserve.
We witnessed only recently the unseemly and prolonged spectable of the directors of an Independent Television company arguing in public and bringing their company into disrepute. Attached to the public television franchises are strict responsibilities and standards of public accountability. The Bill should make provision to ensure that the standards of public accountability are maintained.
When the IBA becomes aware of insoluble dissensions and divisions within a board of directors of any one of its con-

tractors in radio or television, it should have the power, in this measure as well as in the original Act, to cancel a contract if it thinks fit. It should be able to do that in the public interest where the contractor is conducting his affairs in such a way as to prejudice his ability to provide the public with the service for which he has contracted. If that power is not written into this measure the IBA may have to rely on lengthy and perhaps ineffective and equivocal processes. Recent events suggest that the sanction could be necessary in future. I remind the Minister of the biblical quotation
The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away.
Parliament is able through the IBA to award contracts. We should ensure that what is given in our name can, when necessary, be taken away.

Mr. Britian: I am glad that we have the opportunity to consider this matter in spite of the excitement elsewhere in the building. I understand the concern of the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) that the authority should have the power at any time to determine a contract should it appear that a programme company is acting in a way that is prejudicial to the provision of the broadcasting services for which it has contracted.
I assure the hon. Lady, without reliance on biblical maxims, that I share her desire that what she suggests should be possible, and that if it were not possible I should wish the necessary provisions to be inserted in legislation. However, I am satisfied that the existing legislation provides the authority with sufficient powers in this regard.
Section 13(2)(a) of the Independent Broadcasting Act 1973 requires that
every contract between the Authority and a programme contractor … shall … contain a provision reserving to the Authority an absolute right"—
subject to giving the contractor a reasonable opportunity of explanation—
to determine or suspend
a contract should the contractor breach any of his obligations under the contract. That is modified by section 13(2)(b). which provides that there should be at least three breaches before a contract is determined or suspended. That is not


an unreasonable requirement, given the gravity of the sanctions.
Section 13(1) ensures that conduct prejudicial to the contractor's ability to provide the services for which he has contracted would be a breach of contract. It requires the IBA to include in the contract all the provisions that it thinks necessary to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Act. That is the key. It means that if the contractor were to behave in a way that the hon. Lady has foreshadowed, he would be in breach of his contract and the IBA would have the right to take away his contractual rights. As the Act requires the provision of a programme service that is of high quality and fulfils, for example, the conditions in sections 2(2) and 4, the contract with the IBA contractor must include provision to ensure that the contractor is able, and continues to be able, to provide a service of that high quality.
There are other powers that the authority has that I could go into if necessary. I think that I have said sufficient to demonstrate that it has adequate powers to deal with the situation that the hon. Lady envisages. The hon. Lady would like to have those powers in this measure. Whether they lie in this measure or in previous legislation is not of the greatest moment so long as the powers exist. We have not attempted in this measure to enact a consolidating measure. Television legislation, complex though it is, is mercifully not so complex that we have to resort to consolidating legislation.
I hope that the hon. Lady will accept that I have provided a satisfactory explanation for the absence of the provision that she seeks by her amendment to insert.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that there is another way to protect against companies breaching the terms of a contract—namely, that the rights of complainants could be widened slightly so that individuals or bodies would have the right to complain to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission when a contracting company was apparently in breach of its contract?

Mr. Britton: That is something that could be provided. I cannot pretend that it is provided in this measure. Such a provision would give the complaints commission a different role from the one that we have envisaged for it. If it is felt that there has been a breach of the essential obligations on a company, that should be drawn specifically to the attention of the IBA and not to the complaints commission. The IBA would be bound to give the most serious consideration to any such complaints.

Question, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made, put and negatived.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 21 to 34 agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFITS (AMENDMENTS)

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I beg to move,
That the draft Supplementary Benefit (Aggregation, Requirements and Resources) Amendment Regulations 1980, which were laid before this House on 28 October, be approved.
The regulations amend three of the first six sets of supplementary benefit regulations made earlier this year. We have now also laid further eight instruments, and together these constitute the completion of the process of putting the scheme into regulations, the process of conferring an entitlement, set out in law. I know that criticism can be made to the effect that the law is hard to understand. However, it is published for all to see and it will form the basis on which benefit officers, appeal tribunals and commissioners alike will make decisions. This represents a great advance on the inconsistencies of the largely discretionary scheme, which is being replaced.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House share my concern that the new scheme should be comprehensible to claimants. Accordingly, I stress that the standard leaflets on supplementary benefit have been reprinted. There are two special leaflets—one on help with heating costs and another on lump sum payments for special needs. The latter will be used especially where the question of special needs has arisen. It mentions the supplementary benefits handbook as a source of further advice.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: Has any special effort been made in the production of those leaflets to ensure that they are written in terminology that the lay person can understand? Will my hon. Friend give the House an assurance that the leaflet has not been written solely in the language of civil servants—who have put their soul into it—but that it is also intelligible to those who seek information?

Mrs. Chalker: rose—

Mr. Cranley Onslow: Will the leaflets be available in Welsh?

Mrs. Chalker: Many of the leaflets have been rewritten in order to comply

with the law. They have benefited not only because civil servants and politicians have looked at them but because many of those concerned with pressure groups or with special interests have done so. I pay tribute to their sensible contributions and to the way in which they have helped us to put the provisions into language that ordinary people can understand. I hope that I have answered my hon. Friends' questions.
I am pleased to say that the new addition of the supplementary benefit handbook will be published later this week. Hon. Members will recall that from 24 November written notices of assessment will be issued for the first time, which set out how claimants' entitlement has been determined. I can say with some confidence that the new certainty in the regulations will be adequately complemented by easier-to-read guidance.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Although we welcome the fact that the handbook is to be published, will a copy be available in each benefit office, so that claimants can look at it? A person should be able to look at the handbook, as opposed to being told about his entitlement by someone on the other side of the counter, who has thumbed through a copy of it.

Mrs. Chalker: I am sure that copies of the handbook could be made available not only in local offices but in local citizens advice bureaux and in many other places to which people go for advice on supplementary benefit. The handbook will be published this Thursday and, as usual, will be posted to every right hon. and hon. Member.
We have had many inquiries about the publication of the chief supplementary benefit officer's guidance to benefit officers. This is a matter for him, as an independent statutory authority. I understand that the chief supplementary benefit officer has decided that he should make public the guidance that he has prepared on the single payments regulations. This will include his interpretation of what constitutes serious damage or serious risk to health or safety in regulation 30, the fall-hack discretionary power.
The chief supplementary benefit officer is preparing guidance on other sets of regulations, and has decided that he will


also make that public, where it has a significant bearing on a claimant's entitlement to benefit. I welcome that, and I hope that it will help not only right hon. and hon. Members but claimants. The chief supplementary benefit officer intends to make copies of the published guidance available for inspection at each local office and in the Library. Those who want their own copies will be able to buy them at cost from the DHSS. I understand that copies should be available to the public from 24 November. I assure the House that I shall allow no let-up in my Department as regards building on the work of the regulations, so that those claiming supplementary benefit will know better where they stand in relation to the help available.
I said that we had completed the process of putting the scheme into regulations, and so we have. However, I do not regard that as the end of the job. We have always said that we would watch the operation of the new scheme in practice. We are studying a wide range of research options, and looking at ways of monitoring what is happening in local offices, on appeals, and so on. Equally, we have never said that the regulations would remain unchanged and unchangeable.
We welcomed the views that many people put to us, including pressure groups, our own staff, and members of appeal tribunals, about points at which the regulations seemed unclear or unduly harsh. Some of the amendments in the instrument before the House today, and in the miscellaneous amendments regulations, represent our response to those criticisms and queries. For example, in the resources regulations, the changes to paragraph (6) of regulation 4 and to paragraph (3) of regulation 11 both concern payments made by liable relatives to, or in respect of, claimants or dependent children. Both of them make the rules for the treatment of payments by liable relatives less stringent in their operation in the exceptional case without detracting from the fundamental principle that it is for the individual and not the State to maintain his or her dependants.
There were points at which we felt that the regulations need clarification. This was because we felt that they did not fully reflect our intentions or because others questioned them. Thus, we have

tried to set out more clearly in the resources regulations what we mean by "liable relative", and when payments of income are to be taken into account. In the requirements regulations we have altered the definitions of "boarder", and the criteria for deciding whether a person is a householder, and the circumstances in which an allowance is to be made to a claimant for the cost of repairs and insurance for his home.
Another source of amendment is the additions to the regulations to deal with certain small groups. As is so often the case, the rules for the exceptional cases are complicated, and difficult to sort out. If we had waited to sort them out before making any regulations we should not have been able to lay in July the regulations covering the rules for the majority of claimants and circumstances. These regulations fill in several such gaps. One example is polygamous relationships, of which we estimate that there are about 20 among claimants. The regulations also cover boarders who are for the moment in hospital but who have to pay a retaining fee for their lodgings.
The regulations also provide for the so-called adjustment allowance, which is paid for a limited period to certain couples who live together as husband and wife, where an abrupt reduction of benefit might have damaging results on the relationship and, as a result, on the children involved. There are two rather technical reasons for the regulations. The first concerns the eventual shape of the regulations. Rounding provisions have, as a result, been inserted into both the requirements and the resources regulations, because, as it turns out, there is no general set of regulations into which a single general rounding provision could have been inserted.
Secondly, the Housing Bill was still before Parliament when the earlier regulations were made. We have had to take account of changes that it makes in the mechanism for rent registration by an amendment to regulation 15 of the requirements regulations. In the light of the Housing Act 1980 we have been able to set out rules for the restriction of the amounts allowable for housing costs where a sitting tenant purchases his home.
We have also been looking for further simplication wherever possible, and that remains our aim now and in the longer


term. Within the constraints of time and money this year, we have not been able to simplify as much as we should have liked, and there is still a great deal of room for making the rules simpler and easier to understand. We shall continue to refine and simplify the rules wherever possible. The replacement rule for dealing with high irregular earnings in regulation 10(4) of the resources regulations is an example of that. Although still complicated enough, it is a good deal simpler than what it replaces. We have also simplified, by an amendment to regulation 217, the procedure that is to operate in a case where a claimant's housing costs are high.
Inevitably, some of the amendments are necessary to correct oversights and omissions. Some are minor matters, such as wrong references to the substitution of "acquired" for "purchased" in the provision relating to the temporary disregard of the capital value of a property that a claimant intends to make his home, so that those who inherit as well as those who purchase will get the advantage of the disregard.
Similarly, in the requirements regulations we are amending regulations 21 and 22 so that in deciding whether the amount for housing requirements is excessive the determining authority shall look at that amount after it has been reduced by any sub-letting income of deductions for non-dependants' rent contributions.
It is inevitably difficult for me to introduce the regulations. They deal with complicated matters, most of which are of relative detail. In the circumstances I have tried to strike what may have been a somewhat uneasy compromise between three considerations. The first is the content of the regulations. I have tried to show that that is uncontentious. Indeed, I think that the regulations represent that part of the supplementary benefits review—the setting out of the supplementary benefits provisions fully and exactly—which is uncontentious between the major parties. I need hardly add that if, tonight or later, hon. Members wish to raise questions on the content of the regulations, I shall do my best to assist them now or through correspondence.
The second consideration has been to explain the reasons for such amendment regulations being produced shortly before 24 November. The third consideration is that to which I referred first. At least for 24 November, the regulations and the debate represent the topping out of the structure of legislation needed for the review of the supplementary benefits scheme.
Without wishing to inhibit hon. Members from tossing the odd half-brick at me, I believe that we ought to recognise that that is a major legislative achievement. I pay tribute to the work of the hon. Members who have contributed to that, as well as to the civil servants who have worked lengthy hours on it all. I commend the regulations to the House.

Mr. Reginald Freeson: Despite the reasonableness of the tone and much of the content of the Under-Secretary's speech, I fear that, at least in some respects, the matter is not as uncontentious as she suggested.
The aggregation, requirements and resources regulations arising out of the Social Security Act 1980, to which the amendments now before us relate, were considered by Parliament as recently as the end of July. The need for the amendment regulations after such a short interlude and before the main regulations have come into force adds weight to the criticism levelled at the Government when the regulations were first debated, which echoed much criticism about the way that the Government were proceeding with the major legislation earlier this year.
I suspect, as, I imagine, do others, that this is only the start of a series of such amendments to follow from legislation that the Government prepared in haste. We must await events to see whether my fears are correct.
I am appalled at the necessity for the amendments and at their complexity and variety. There has been incompetence and we intend to divide the House on that basis, as well as to register our dissatisfaction with certain general aspects of Government policy on social security matters covered, in part, by the subjects dealt with in the regulations.
The amendment regulations raise several general issues which I wish to


deal with before putting specific points to the Under-Secretary. The first is the question of consultation. Despite the fact that the Minister made general allusions to what she called pressure groups, I am concerned about the failure of consultation earlier this year.
The Opposition and others, including the pressure groups, repeatedly pressed for more consultation on the detailed contents of the regulations before they were put to Parliament. The Under-Secretary will remember how much time we spent in Committee pressing her and her colleagues on that matter. We were constantly told by her that further consultation was impracticable and that the Government's tight timetable made it impossible.
The unseemly haste with which the regulations were prepared and the speed at which they were pushed through Parliament only a few months ago have resulted in the need for extensive amendments, many of which could probably have been avoided if the Government had taken a more open and less hasty approach, including a great deal more consultation with the groups to whom the hon. Lady referred. Those organisations have made their views known on a variety of matters in connection with the Act.
In the light of the background to the regulations, which the Under-Secretary did not touch on but which I have felt bound to discuss, we are entitled to ask Ministers to explain why there was not more consultation before the original regulations were laid in July and how many of the amendments arose from queries raised with the DHSS by non-Government organisations, as distinct from other Government Departments.
We are also concerned about the complexity of the scheme. The changes in the supplementary benefit scheme have been widely advertised by the Government as a major exercise in simplification, but the amendment regulations mean that those wishing to understand the requirements and resources regulations will have to read two parallel sets of regulations. Perhaps in another four months they will have to read three sets. How many more sets will follow? The fact that we have the amendment regulations before us underlies the point that, far from simpli-
Fying matters, the new scheme is developing into one of frightening complexity.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will my right hon. Friend press the Government to give an undertaking to the effect that, if they have to bring forward a further set of amendment regulations, these will be a new print of the complete regulations rather than a mere printing another set of amendments?

Mr. Freeson: I shall be coming to that point shortly.
To illustrate the developing complexity of this so-called simplification, I should like to ask for an explanation that lay people or hon. Members can understand of the treatment of maintenance payments under regulation 11 of the resources regulations and regulation 9 of these amending regulations.
I come now to the question just raised by my hon. Friend. The publication of these regulations shows that the formulation and administration of social policy is becoming as difficult to understand by hon. Members and outside organisations as some aspects of the management of the economy, which have helped to drive hundreds of thousands more people into reliance on this part of the social security system.
The difficulties of understanding the regulations are increased by these amendmerits, so it is essential to have publication, even earlier than my hon. Friend suggested, of a consolidated edition of the Act and the regulations. When may we expect such publication?
One of our major and constant criticisms of the Government's handling of the timetable for the supplementary benefits scheme changes is that far too little time has been given for parliamentary scrutiny. We dealt at great length in Committee with accountability and parliamentary scrutiny. It is disgraceful that only half a day was allowed for a debate on rules which affect the lives of millions of poor people. The fact that amendments have been found necessary even before the new scheme comes into operation means that further changes will probably be necessary soon after 24 November, when the changes take effect. This is not really the "topping out" process that the hon. Lady described. If the Government are not careful, "simplification" will become a dirty word.
Parliament must play an active role in monitoring the new scheme—by which I mean Parliament as a body, not just hon. Members approaching the Minister, who is admittedly always very helpful. The Secretary of State should account regularly to us for the working of the new scheme. We are entitled to an assurance that a procedure will be found for regular reports.
The amendment in regulation 9 relates to treatment of maintenance payments by liable relatives, and underlines both the complexity of the regulations and the possible anomalies. The effect of these amending regulations is that lump sum maintenance payments will be treated as income or as a capital resource, depending on who receives them.
Because of the complexity of the regulations, some groups of claimants will be in an anomalous position, if only because it will be difficult for the lay person, and even for anyone administering the regulations, to understand them. I must repeat my invitation to the Minister to explain the regulations and say whether the Government forsee any difficulties in their operation.
The Ministers should also clarify paragraph 13 of the schedule, which provides that tenants with security of tenure who increase their housing costs by buying their homes will not have their interest payments fully met. It seems that their housing assistance will be restricted to the rent allowances level previously received and, if a working member of the family shares in house purchase, the supplementary beneficiary will not be helped as part owner.
Leaving aside arguments against compulsory sale of council houses under the Housing Act 1980, it seems contradictory that one Government Department, the Department of the Environment, should be giving tenants the right to purchase while another, the DHSS, is penalising those who do.
Will sitting tenants really not be fully helped with interest payments, as are other owner-occupiers on supplementary benefit, even when interest rates rise? Will their assistance be held to existing rent allowance levels within the supplementary benefit allowance, even when such allowances increase generally to match

rising rents—in the local authority sector, for example?

Mr. Frank Field: I have also tried to read the draft schedule and have interpreted it slightly differently from my right hon. Friend. I thought that the Government were changing all the rules now for those who would be moving to mortgage repayments and that a general mortgage stop was coming which would affect not only those buying council houses.

Mr. Freeson: We shall have to await the Minister's response on this complex area. That shows that this is not really the way to probe these matters: other procedures should be adopted. I have spent a great deal of time suggesting how this sort of examination could be fitted into the cut and thrust of the new Select Committee system, which is the best way of probing in detail.
However, my understanding is that the draft regulations implement, with one variation, the practice up to now of DHSS officers. But by making it a formal regulation, we are blocking the possibility of discretionary authority, which was influenced in the past by hon. Members approaching Ministers and the then chairman of the SBC. That flexibility and potential for change will be prevented by the imposition of regulations.
The variation relates to the restriction which will be placed on people moving into joint ownership. That has arisen from the implementation of the Housing Act 1980. It is an attempt to prevent those on supplementary benefit from obtaining the help of a working member of his family in the joint purchase of a house. We are entitled to probe this matter and to seek answers from the Minister.
Before my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) intervened, I was explaining my interpretation of the draft regulations and attempting to put it in the form of specific questions. To be sure that I have not lost the thread of my argument, perhaps I may be allowed to reiterate the question.
I asked the Minister whether it was really the case that sitting tenants who bought their houses would not be helped fully with interest payments because


their entitlement would be based on the rent element in their supplementary benefit allowance which could well be below the interest payments. Then I asked whether this was so despite increases in interest rates which could follow, and whether it was really the case that their assistance would be held to their existing rent allowances when the rent allowances were generally increased; so that they would be in a position where, had they stayed as tenants, they would have been in receipt of a larger rent allowance as rents rose whereas, by coming into home ownership, they would be frozen at the rent allowance level which, as it were, they had left behind them. That is my reading of the regulations.
When she replies to the debate, I hope that the Minister will refer in part to the three lines at the top of page 9 of the amendment regulations. This is the first specific matter that I wish to put to her. We read there that the special provision for claimants with security of tenure who buy their houses will not apply
if its application becomes inappropriate.
I am afraid that this is typical of far too much of the generalised and imprecise nature of many of the regulations which leave discretion to the benefit officer. I ask the Minister to explain the circumstances envisaged in which the words that I have quoted will be applied. The provision states quite clearly that if the application of the rules that I have just been summarising becomes inappropriate they will no longer apply.
It is important to return to accountability, to which I referred earlier, in the context of the prospect of yet more amendment regulations being put before the House shortly and the possible content of those regulations in terms of the operation of the supplementary benefit scheme.
During the past few days Whitehall and Fleet Street have been buzzing with reports to the effect that the Government intend to repeat the 5 per cent. cut in the value of short-term national insurance benefits for the sick and disabled and of child benefits, and that they will even make cuts in supplementary benefits. In many places there is talk of the serious threat to the social security budget, especially the supplementary benefit scheme budget, in the present round of public

expenditure cuts being discussed by the Cabinet.
At a time of mounting unemployment, it is hardly credible that the Government should be even contemplating going further down the road which caused so much bitterness and social dissension half a century ago, in the 1930s. In the past 18 months we have gone far enough down that road already. It is hardly credible that the Government should be considering going further down it.
We have the promises of the Secretary of State, who assured us repeatedly that the Government intended to maintain the real value of the supplementary benefit safety net. On the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman also promised that child benefit would be protected against inflation, and look what happened to that.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: What about the disabled?

Mr. Freeson: The unemployed, the ill-housed, the disabled, the sick and others on social security in their millions already are bearing the brunt of the economic slump and the Government's calamitous mismanagement of the economy. It is unacceptable that the Government should even contemplate reducing still further the incomes of those on or near the poverty line. If they insist on contemplating it, let them do so here in the House of Commons, to which they are accountable. Let them not do so in Fleet Street or in the nooks and crannies of Whitehall. Let them do it in the House of Commons, and let them do it tonight.
I seek three specific assurances from the Minister. The first is that it is not the Government's intention to cut the real value of national insurance benefits again. The second is that it is not the intention of the Government to cut the real value of child benefit again. The third is that it is not the intention of the Government to cut the real value of the supplementary benefit budget. If the hon. Lady cannot, on behalf of the Government, give assurances about those three vital matters, she and her colleagues should resign.

Mr. Frank Field: I must begin by apologising to the Minister, since I missed her opening statement. One of


my hon. Friends has been kind enough to fill me in with the gist of what she said, and I am sure that the hon. Lady will put me right if I have her wrong.
Had the news at 6 o'clock been not so good I should have been very tempted to say that some of us told the Minister so. When we debated, sometimes in all-night sittings, the outline of the new social security scheme, we made a plea that consultation on the forthcoming regulations should be as wide as possible. We made that plea not with a view to interrupting or hindering business but because we wanted the business to be carried out as expeditiously as possible. We asked for the consultations to be fitted in with the timetable which the Government themselves wished to meet.
Our request was ignored by the Minister. The regulations were published and were approved by the House. But already we have another set of regulations, which are largely amendments, priced at £1.40. That itself is a worrying development. But, when I arrived in the Chamber, I did not hear the Minister press the point which she pressed so ably and with such enthusiasm when we last debated the regulations. It may be that she did it at the beginning of her speech.
The message then was that here was a major act of opening up government and of explaining to claimants their rights. Here we were doing away with some of the secret codes and publishing them in regulations in a form which people could understand. My right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) challenged the Minister to explain one part of the regulations. I wish her to explain one other part in simple English.
These regulations are of great importance to a group of people who will be affected by them. Regulation 9(4) adds a paragraph which should be read in one breath, since it contains no full stop. It says:
(3A) Paragraph (3) shall not apply to a lump sum in any case in which the liable relative is making to or in respect of the member of the assessment unit to or in respect of whom it is paid periodical payments at a rate of an amount equal to or exceeding that specified in paragraph (3)(a), but excluding for this purpose the sum of £2.00 there mentioned, or paragraph (3)(b) as appropriate ("the specified rate"); and in any case where he ceases to

make such payments or is making them only at a lower rate (whether initially, or because the specified rate has increased and the periodical payments have not correspondingly increased, or because the periodical payments have been reduced), paragraph (3)",
and so it goes on.
I may have some difficulty with reading, as hon. Members will have noticed, but this is an exercise in explaining to poor people, who may not have had the benefit of a university education—although with unemployment increasing there may be a growing number of university students in the dole queues—what are their rights. I make this not as a point of jest but as one of substance. Who can understand regulations like the one that I have just quoted? Arising from this, I wish to pos questions to the Minister about the availability of information and where it can be obtained. I should like to refer to the price of the regulations. If my memory serves me correctly, there has been about a 25 per cent. price rise between the last draft regulations and the actual regulations. Can we have something more like the 6 per cent. rise this time?
Will the Minister give a commitment that all the regulations and the amendments will be available, like national insurance regulations, in supplementary benefit offices? I was pleased to hear that the supplementary benefit handbook will be published in time for the new scheme.

Mrs. Chalker: On Thursday.

Mr. Field: I wonder if a commitment can be given that copies will be available for claimants to consult in local offices. We are privileged in that we can get HMSO publications free. Claimants are not so privileged.
It would be good if the Minister were able to answer questions about parts of the draft regulations. I turn to regulation 9, of which I tried to read part but gave up reading entirely to the House. Is it right to assume that this complicated provision concerns lump sum payments, lump sum payments paid from husbands, and how those lump sum payments are to be converted into income for supplementary benefit requirement purposes? If my understanding of draft regulation 9 is correct, I should like two undertakings from the Minister. Will she give a guarantee that any agreement


now operating will be held under the new scheme? Is it the case that regulation 9, if we could only understand it, is not retrospective, and that arrangements for payment that are currently in operation will be honoured in the new scheme?
Will the Minister give an undertaking that, as a result of the sale of matrimonial homes, that part of the sale which comes usually to the wife will not be regarded as a lump sum payment should be regarded as in draft regulation 9? Those are points I should like to put concerning regulation 9. Given the difficulties in comprehending that simple piece of the Queen's English, I could be wrong.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: It is a difficult procedure putting these points to the Minister. Many hon. Members felt that the Select Committee would look at the regulations. Will my hon. Friend, as a member of the Select Committee, give an assurance that he will do his best to make sure that the Select Committee looks at the regulations soon so that Ministers can be questioned and perhaps more important, so that the benefit officer can be questioned on his interpretation?

Mr. Field: I will give that guarantee as just one member of the Select Committee. We all have votes. It is one man, one vote in the Select Committee when deciding our programme of work. That point has been notified to the chairman. It is on the agenda for discussion.
A more serious point at stake is whether a Minister should come to the House with regulations that affect the livelihood and well-being of the 5 million people in this country who are the poorest without really understanding them. I believe I have a right to expect the Minister to reply to my questions. I hope that she will reply as competently as she does on most matters. That does not invalidate the point of my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East that the most careful scrutiny of the regulations needs to be undertaken by the Select Committee or some similar body.
I now turn to regulation 6. I refer to subsection (2). Since the House has already had an example of my inability to read terribly well, I shall not read out another quotation. I assume that most

hon. Members are looking at it. This subsection, on the surface, worries me very much. It appears that the Government are swiping at one of those groups that they paraded before the election as one of the most deserving groups. I refer to those women, often single, looking after aged or sick relatives. According to my understanding of the old regulations as they operate at the moment, the corn-mission could assume that the income was being paid for the care that the old person was receiving from the relative. In making that decision, regard would be paid to the income of the old, frail person.
According to my understanding of regulation 6, an income will be assumed irrespective of the income of the aged parent or parents, or relative, who is being cared for. If my interpretation is correct and the regulation goes through without amendment or without any undertaking by the Government to bring forward further amendments, it means that one group with almost no provision in the social security system other than supplementary benefit will be penalised in a fairly horrendous way.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East has already touched upon the last point that I should like to raise. He referred to the difficulties in understanding the regulations to this draft statutory instrument. I hope that the Minister, before coming to the House, read carefully the statutory instrument published by her colleagues in the Department of the Environment. I refer to Statutory Instrument No. 1423 entitled"Housing, England and Wales. The Housing (Right to Buy) (Mortgage Limit) Regulations 1980". This shows what the Government really think about poor people in this country. The noose is tightened in the schedule to the regulations we are now debating.
As some hon. Members know, my views about council house sales are not yet widely shared by my colleagues on the Opposition side of the House. They will share them one day. I believe, to paraphrase Bacon, that wealth is like muck; it is no good unless it is spread around.
The Government, during the general election campaign and in pushing the Housing Bill through the House,


talked of the benefits of owner-occupation. According to the housing regulations, in Britain owner-occupation is extending to all groups of claimants—provided they are not on supplementary benefits. As my right hon. Friend explained, any chance of their being helped with the buying of a house as a party to a mortgage agreement is vetoed in the regulations before us.
Let it be known throughout the land that the Government believe that owner-occupation is good, provided one is not poor. One can have capital grants, help with interest and the like from the Government, provided one owns private industry. But woe betide the poor. It would appear from the two sets of regulations, particularly the set that we are debating, that the Government believe one is not fit to own one's house if one is on supplementary benefit.
Why did the Secretary of State take so long to reply to my letters when I wrote immediately after the Housing Bill had completed its passage through the House? I said that there was no problem in bringing the poor into the sale of council houses, because the Government could meet not only interest payments but capital repayments, if they really believed in a property-owning democracy. We shall not achieve that. The Government will not even allow the poor to contribute their share to the interest charges on a shared mortgage.

Mr. Freeson: Under the Labour Government, when the concept of a universal housing allowance was being studied in detail between Departments, the idea of extending supplementary benefit payment to cover the capital cost as well as interest charges for owner-occupiers was accepted. We look to the day when the present Government, who parade themselves as supporting home-ownership, will implement that which we had already accepted as a principle.

Mr. Field: I do not share my hon. Friend's optimism. It will be left to the next Labour Government to implement that proposal. It is good to know that it is on the stocks.
The schedule tells us more about what the Tory Party really thinks about the poor than anything we have seen in this

Parliament so far—and there have been some horrendous measures.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the hon. Gentleman spell out which part of the schedule has that effect? If he is right, it is a subject to which the House will need to return. It is worth putting the matter on the record so that more hon. Members than are present now can study it.

Mr. Field: As I understand it, most of the schedule after paragraph 9 is relevant to the housing costs. In particular, paragraph 13 is important for our consideration tonight. I stress that it must be read in conjunction with The Housing (Right to Buy) (Mortgage Limit) Regulations, which the Minister's colleagues have already laid before the House, because that excludes income from supplementary benefit from being taken into account in determining the income of those who wish to buy their council houses. The noose is made in the housing regulations; it is tightened in the supplementary benefit regulations before us.
I hope that we shall have three undertakings about official information provided for the poor. First, I hope that there will be a freeze on the price that the public pay for the regulations. I hope that there will not be a steep rise between the draft stage and the completed stage.
Secondly, I hope that all the regulations and amendments—incomprehensible as they are to me, and no doubt to many other hon. Members—will be available in every social security office, just as national insurance regulations are.
Thirdly, I hope that the supplementary benefit handbooks will be avaliable. I am not saying that we need to go as far as the idea of chaining them to the wall, as medieval bibles were chained. But no doubt the thirst for knowledge of claimants under the new scheme will be such that the Government should provide a generous stock in supplementary benefit offices.
Next, I ask the Minister for two assurances on regulation 9—that it will not be retrospective on arrangements currently operating in families and that it will not apply to the matrimonial home.
I have also asked for the undertaking that if I have read regulation 6 correctly


—I hope that I have not—the Government will amend it. As it stands, it means that those single people who are looking after aged and infirm relatives will no longer be eligible for supplementary benefits, because they will be deemed to be being paid an adequate income by the person to whom they are providing the care.
Finally, perhaps the Minister would like to salvage a little of her reputation as a radical by commenting on why the present Government, while preaching about the benefits of home ownership, particularly in the public sector—sentiments that I share—have surreptitiously piloted through a regulation from the Department of the Environment saying that those on supplementary benefit are ineligible. They have also made sure that even a part share of the mortgage cannot be undertaken by the poor on supplementary benefit, as a result of the regulations that we are debating.

Mrs. Chalker: With the leave of the House I shall try to reply to the comments made by Opposition Members in this short debate.
First, I return to something which I said a little while ago in the House and in Committee and which I shall go on saying. I believe that it is important that we should be prepared to amend our regulations publicly and openly when we find that they are not as precise as possible or are not as they were intended to be. That can be seen only after a period of consideration.
I was very conscious in the summer that there would always be a need for amending regulations. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) asked for an assurance that we would amend the regulations if we found that something was unworkable. That was in direct contradiction to his right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson), who asked whether this would be the last set of amendments. I understand that the Opposition are saying clearly and firmly that they do not like having amendment upon amendment. That was the point of the right hon. Gentleman's earlier remarks.
The point about these regulations is that they are introduced, at a slightly quieter time in the processes of Parlia-

ment, after a period of considerable study, as considered amendments suggested by people outside the House, and some hon. Members, to provide for what is
right and what was intended in the debates. I know that the amendments create much extra work, but it is right that we should amend the regulations so that they are as hon. Members had decided they should be.
I expected the right hon. Gentleman to be appalled and to make the comments that he did. He would not be his normal self if he did not. However, on the question of earlier consultation, I can assure him that throughout the year there would have been consultations about the way in which the scheme would go on. I, too, wish that there were many more hours in the day, so that more consultation could take place immediately, but sometimes people want to consider the results of earlier consultations. Although I did not personally handle the regulations in the House in July, I believe it right that we should allow, and encourage, the consultation that has been going on and that will continue.
I do not believe that there has been a failure to consult. I do not believe that there is now unseemly haste. The complexity of the scheme to which the right hon. Gentleman referred makes it essential that we look at the scheme stage by stage, as it is in effect, to ensure that it is as hon. Members requested.

Mr. Freeson: My strong objection is to the manner in which further amendments are being made. The regulations are not even working and yet we are asked to consider amendments. That indicates that something was wrong three months ago when the main regulations were laid before the House. We are not discussing amendments to regulations which are already in operation and from which we have learned by experience. The scheme is not even working and yet we are asked to amend it. May we have a list of the main organisations which were consulted about the regulations which were put before the House in July? For how long were they consulted?

Mrs. Chalker: I speak from memory, but the consultations in the summer were with most of the main pressure groups. Detailed consultations could not take


place until their views had been taken into account. Where we have seen the need we have made minor modifications to the general regulations which were accepted by the House and which are still right in principle. In that way we have improved the system for people whose circumstances are slightly different from the circumstances which we first envisaged.

Mr. Field: The Minister has not grasped the point. We are not glowing over the Government's failure to bring in regulations which stand up to scrutiny. That would be easy enough. We are trying to put a serious point to the Government. We do not doubt that the Government consulted outside bodies. However, they consulted at the wrong time. In Committee and privately we pleaded with the Government to consult before they brought the draft regulations to the House. Are not most of the amendments the result of suggestions which outside poverty groups have made to the Minister? How much more sensible it would have been for the Government to have consulted prior to the publication of the original regulations. That would have saved us a debate and amendments tonight.

Mrs. Chalker: Even if there had been much wider consultation in more specific terms than was possible way back in the summer, we should not have seen all the matters which the passage of time has brought to the notice of officials. Many of the amendments have come, not from outside bodies, but from our staff in the Department.
The right hon. Member for Brent, East asked about a consolidation of the regulations and Acts. They are provided in the "Yellow Book". It is a book for experts which is amended at six-montly intervals. It will be brought up to date as soon as possible. Copies will be put in the Library.
The information which claimants need will be in the leaflet and the handbook and in the chief supplementary benefits officer's guidance, for those who wish to go through it. As much explanatory material as possible for the public and hon. Members will be made available. I shall ensure that all information is updated.
We have concentrated not only on asking outside bodies to examine draft leaflets but on making them available in time for the start of the new supplementary benefits scheme. That is why I say that we shall deal with any necessary changes as they arise. Nobody, least of all the hon. Member for Birkenhead expects claimants to read the regulations. The hon. Gentleman tried, more or less successfully—I must not be rude about his reading prowess—to read out a portion of the regulations. When drafted by lawyers they cannot possibly be in language used by the man and woman in the street. However, it makes more sense to put the information into leaflets and the handbook which will be available on Thursday 13 November. That is a substantial advance on the position a few years ago.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead also commented upon the cost of the regulations. That is not a matter for us. It is in line with HMSO pricing policy. I can assure him that claimants will not have to buy the regulations. They will be available in local offices. We have no objection to handbooks also being available in the local offices.
The right hon. Member for Brent, East and the hon. Member for Birkenhead asked about maintenance and lump sum payments. The regulations reflect exactly the Supplementary Benefits Commission policy. If a liable relative pays that sum agreed regularly there are no problems over lump sums. The Labour Government took steps to ensure that there was no storing up of payments, and we shall follow in their footsteps. We shall ensure that maintenance is paid regularly and not saved up and paid in a lump sum. That is an abuse of the system. There is no difference from the practice under the old scheme. I hope that those comments cover also the question of maintenance. If it does not I shall write to the hon. Member for Birkenhead.
I was also asked about the purchase of a home by a sitting tenant and whether there would be a restriction on mortgage interest. There is no difference between us and the previous Government. It is long-standing policy that the Government do not assist with the purchase of a capital asset by somebody who is in receipt of supplementary benefit. There is no inconsistency between regulation 13


and 20 and the regulations under the Housing Act 1980 which govern the conditions of entitlement to local authority mortgages.
Under the regulations relating to the Housing Act it is clear that supplementary benefit will not be regarded as an eligible source of income where a local authority assesses a prospective purchaser's level of eligibility for a mortgage. It is clear therefore, that most supplementary benefit claimants living alone will not be able to buy their council house, simply because they would not be able afford it. However, where there are other people in the house, such as working sons and daughters, and the sale is made jointly and the income for the mortgage eligibility purposes is that of the working son or daughter, the regulations simply ensure that supplementary benefit is not increased. The Supplementary Benefits Commission has encountered such cases on a number of occasions. Opposition Members will find that the details are already included in the Supplementary Benefits Handbook for 1979, in paragraph 5.20. The amendment simply carries forward the policy that that followed. I am sure that the House would agree that it would be quite wrong for supplementary benefits to be increased where there is no reason to do so. If the tenancy is secure, there can be no good reason why supplementary benefit should help fund the purchase of a capital aquisition.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I apologise for the fact that I was not in the Chamber to listen to earlier remarks. Am I right in thinking that if I had a job and obtained a mortgage and then lost my job and obtained supplementary benefit, the Supplementary Benefits Commission would pay the interest on my mortgage, but that if I were out of work and receiving supplementary benefit at a time when I might be able to buy my house my supplemetary benefit income would not be included in any way, even if I did not have to rise to pay the mortgage that I was trying to obtain?

Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend has understood exactly the continuation of the position that has always existed, whereby the Supplementary Benefits Commission would not increase the benefit and a building society would not include that money in the assessment for a housing loan.

Mr. Bottomley: The point made by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) is that if we, as a Government and a party, are committed to the extension of home ownership, we should ask ourselves whether a continuation of the status quo is right and adequate given our housing and supplementary benefit policies.

Mrs. Chalker: I can understand the point being made by my hon. Friend and by Opposition Members. But it has not been thought appropriate to assist with the purchase of a capital asset when a person is dependent upon supplementary benefit. In these days of straitened circumstances I cannot give an assurance that we might see our way to doing anything different. I understand the point that has been made. Where resources are available to assist with the purchase of a house when a son or daughter is willing to help, it does mean not that the supplementary benefit is not paid but that it cannot be increased to take on a new liability. That is the position.

Mr. Field: One must congratulate the hon. Lady on explaining the point with absolute clarity, but it is not the point to which we asked her to address herself. The question at issue is how the regulations relate to the housing regulations on mortgage repayment that the Government are bringing forward. Unfortunately, I have sent my copies of those regulations to the Official Report, and have to speak from memory. It is of crucial importance to realise that while the Government are maintaining the existing rules for those who have a mortgage, the housing regulations being brought forward prevent anybody on supplementary benefit from entering into an arrangement to buy his home if it is a council house, even if he is asking only for the interest payment to be paid from the Government. That is inconsistent. We pay businesses capital grants—why not pay the poor capital grants? The Government are serious about spreading the idea that property—home ownership—gives dignity. I understand the Minister's argument that the Labour Administration's policy on mortgage repayments is being continued. We understand that, and there is no argument about it. But if I were a council tenant in Birkenhead in receipt of supplementary benefit—which I might be one day—wishing to


buy my council house, but my only income was supplementary benefits, that income would not be taken into account when working out whether my income was adequate to secure a mortgage—despite the rules about repayment of interest or capital repayment. Therefore, the Government must address themselves to the fact that the regulations will need to be read in conjunction with the regulations being brought forward by the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mrs. Chalker: I assure the House, for the second time, that the regulations are not inconsistent. It is not only a question of not increasing the amount of money to help with housing costs if a purchase has been entered into—which remains the same under this Government as it was under the previous Government—but that it was also a long-standing policy not to assist with a new purchase of a capital asset previously, and it is not now the policy. The Housing Act 1980 regulations make it clear that supplementary benefit was not included as an eligible source of income previously when assessing a prospective purchaser's level of eligibility for a mortgage by a local authority, nor will it be now. There is no change in that.

Mr. Freeson: The approach that my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) is taking is that he is seeking a change in policy that would fit in with a change of policy initiated by another Government Minister. It has always been the practice to interpret the principle of no help for the acquisition of a capital asset when in receipt of supplementary benefit as meaning that the State should not go beyond assistance with interest payments. The principle was applied in that way. That is now being varied. I shall repeat a point that has not been answered, namely, if somebody is in receipt of a rent allowance within supplementary benefit, and is subject to restrictions coming from another Department, and he then wishes to consider entering a house purchase on a joint basis, the assistance will be restricted to a level in line with the rent allowance that was paid previously below the level required by mortgage interest payments. That practice ignores the fact that if a person remained a tenant the rent allowance would

be increased from time to time to allow for changes in the rent levels. That is not allowed for in this provision. It is important that we do not continue to repeat that the practice is being translated exactly into the new regulations. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead stressed, that is not the point. We are supposed to be improving upon the system, but, according to Government policy, that will not be so.
Until now there has been no compulsory purchase of council houses. That is the difference under the Housing Act 1980. Yet many sales took place. Can it be said with certainty that people buying their houses now, who previously would have done so under a voluntary arrangement as distinct from a compulsory power, will be in no different a position from that in which they would have been prior to the Housing Act 1980? The only difference is a compulsion on local authorities to sell. We are concerned that their position, whether they buy under a compulsory power or under a voluntary agreement, is as it was prior to the 1980 Act.

Mrs. Chalker: I should not attempt to tangle with the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge of housing matters because he was Minister with responsibility for housing in the previous Government. In relation to the supplementary benefits regulations, we are being entirely consistent with the regulations that have been laid under the Housing Act 1980. When he has time to go through those regulations in detail the right hon. Gentleman will find that they take into account the supplementary benefit position. There were no regulations under the previous Housing Act dealing with this specific position.
The hon. Gentleman asked, secondly, whether we would be prepared to pay the mortgage interest where there was no security of tenure. Of course that would be the case. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and set out the matter clearly so that the exchanges and interchanges that we have had tonight can be put on the record for all to see. That is the best way to resolve the matter, because if we go into it further we shall delay the House for too long.
The right hon. Gentleman asked also for an assurance about regulation 9. He asked what was meant by the words "as


appropriate". This is a matter for the benefit officer, but I expect that the supplementary benefit officer will issue guidance on this in due course. The right hon. Gentleman asked what sort of situation one had in mind in using this terminology. For example, it would be where a house had been purchased jointly by a supplementary benefit claimant and her working son or daughter. Let us say that the son subsequently dies, emigrates or is sentenced to a long period of imprisonment. In those circumstances it would not seem appropriate to continue to restrict the amount of supplementary benefit. It is perfectly proper and right that the individual benefit officer should be given power to waive that particular restriction of housing cost where in his judgment it would be appropriate to do
so.
I make no apologies for the deliberate looseness of the phraseology. It is sufficiently loose to enable us to meet the needs of claimants in difficult and often unforeseeable circumstances. I have given an illustration of the sort of circumstances that could be covered by the phrase, but we shall have to await the decisions of the social security commissioners before we have a list of specific instances. I hope that that clears up some of the points that the right hon. Gentleman had in mind.
I turn now to a number of other questions posed by the hon. Member for Birkenhead. He asked whether regulation 9 was retrospective. I assure him that it is not. It embodies current SBC policy. There is to be no change. He also asked a question about housing purchase in relation to regular maintenance from a separated or divorced spouse. Housing purchase proceeds are not taken into account if regular manitenance is paid, and the proceeds of the house purchase have not been made part of a device to avoid the liability—usually of the husband, but not exclusively—to maintain someone else on supplementary benefit. It is simply a precaution to avoid an abuse which could otherwise occur.
The hon. Gentleman asked me a third point about regulation 6. I was not wholly with the hon. Gentleman when he made that point, and I shall write to him. As he is not present to hear my reply, it is probably better that I write to him, other-

wise the whole matter may become slightly mystifying.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The hon. Lady is aware that a lot of people have received their new books for the benefits that will be paid from 24 November. When she talks about retrospection, does she mean that some of those people will have their books changed further or have the amounts reduced?

Mrs. Chalker: No. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the situations of which he is afraid will not occur. We may indeed discover things after 24 November which will include a back payment—something which should have been taken into account. However, provided people have been totally honest in submitting their claim form, the amount of money that appears on the foils is the sum that they will be paid. There is no need for the hon. Gentleman to be concerned on that score.
I hope that I have covered all the individual comments, apart from one which the right hon. Member for Brent, East asked in three ways. He asked for some assurances about what happens as a result of the Chancellor's public expenditure exercise and the Budget next year. Those assurances would be the outcome of the Chancellor's negotiations. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that I am not privy to those negotiations. I cannot give him the assurances. I cannot deny that he would like them or that I would like to give them. However, they are not mine to give.
I can honestly say that although these amendments seem complicated—indeed, they are as they are written in legal language to protect public funds—they are a further step in an endeavour to bring to our supplementary benefits scheme a greater degree of comprehension and simplicity. Although the transitional period while changing from one system to the other must be a most difficult time for everyone involved, I am quite sure that all the work that was done in the supplementary benefits review under the previous Government, and in the Social Security Act 1980, will bear good fruit for the beneficiaries of the supplementary benefit scheme. I hope that the House will accept these regulations.

Question put:

The House divided: Ayes 143, Noes 101.

Division No. 491]
AYES
[7.55p.m.


Alison, Michael
Gummer, John Selwyn
Nelson, Anthony


Ancram, Michael
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Neubert, Michael


Aspinwall, Jack
Hampson, Dr Keith
Newton, Tony


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Hannam, John
Onslow, Cranley


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Page, Rt Hon Sir Graham (Crosby)


Bendall, Vivian
Hawkins, Paul
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Heddle, John
Parris, Matthew


Berry, Hon Anthony
Henderson, Barry
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Best, Keith
Hicks, Robert
Porter, Barry


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Biggs-Davison, John
Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hooson, Tom
Rathbone, Tim


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Rees, peter (Dover and Deal)


Brinton, Tim
Hurd, Hon Douglas
Renton, Tim


Budgen, Nick
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Rhodes James, Robert


Bulmer, Esmond
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Butcher, John
King, Rt Hon Tom
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Knight, Mrs Jill
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Knox, David
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lawrence, Ivan
Sims, Roger


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Lawson, Nigel
Speed, Keith


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Le Marchant, Spencer
Speller, Tony


Chapman, Sydney
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)
Stainton, Keith


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lloyd, peter (Fareham)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Cockeram, Eric
Lyell, Nicholas
Stradling Thomas, J.


Colvin, Michael
McCrindle, Robert
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)


Cope, John
MacGregor, John
Tebbit, Norman


Corrie, John
MacKay, John (Argyll)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Cranborne, Viscount
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
McQuarrie, Albert
Thompson, Donald


Dorrell, Stephen
Medal, David
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Marlow, Tony
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Mates, Michael



Eyre, Reginald
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Trippler, David


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Mawby, Ray
van Straubenzee, W. R


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Viggers, Peter


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Mellor, David
Wakeham, John


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Waller, Gary


Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Warren, Kenneth


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Watson, John


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Fry, Peter
Moate, Roger
Wheeler, John


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Wickendon, Keith


Glyn, Dr Alan
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Gow, Ian
Murphy, Christopher
Wolfson, Mark


Gower, Sir Raymond
Myles, David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Greenway, Harry
Neale, Gerrard
Mr. Carol Mather and


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Needham, Richard
Mr. David Waddington.




NOES


Alton, David
Eastham, Ken
John, Brynmor


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
English, Michael
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Bidwell, Sydney
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Kerr, Russell


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Evans, John (Newton)
Leadbitter, Ted


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Field, Frank
Leighton, Ronald


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Fitt, Gerard
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Canavan, Dennis
Flannery, Martin
Litherland, Robert


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Foster, Derek
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)


Cartwright, John
Foulkes, George
McCartney, Hugh


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Freud, Clement
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
McWilliam, John


Cryer, Bob
Gourlay, Harry
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)


Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Maxton, John


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Hardy, Peter
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Deakins, Eric
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)


Dewar, Donald
Haynes, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshaw)


Dixon, Donald
Home Robertson, John
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)


Dormand, Jack
Homewood, William
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Douglas, Dick
Hooley, Frank
Park, George


Dubs, Alfred
Howells, Geraint
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
Hudson Davies, Ednyfed
Race, Reg


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)







Rodgers, Rt Hon William
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Whitehead, Phillip


Rooker, J. W.
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Whitlock, William


Sever, John
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)
Winnick, David


Snape, Peter
Tinn, James
Woolmer, Kenneth


Spriggs, Leslie
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)



Steel, Rt Hon David
Weetch, Ken
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Stoddart, David
Wellbeloved, James
Mr. Joseph Dean and


Strang, Gavin
Welsh, Michael
Mr. George Morton.

Question accordingly agreed to.


Resolved,


That the draft Supplementary Benefit (Aggregation, Requirements and Resources) Amendment Regulations 1980, which were laid before this House on 28 October, be approved.

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND (REMANDED PERSONS)

8 pm

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Humphrey Atkins): I beg to move,
That the Remand (Temporary Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 (S.I., 1980, No. 1626), a copy of which was laid before this House on 30 October, be approved.
The House will know that on 29 October the prison officers in Northern Ireland announced that they would take industrial action in support of their colleagues in England and Wales, with effect from the following morning. The background to this dispute was explained by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in the House on 28 October. The Northern Ireland prison officers said that their action would entail refusing to accept into the prisons new committals on sentence, new remand prisoners and returned remand prisoners.
I must stress that the prison officers in Northern Ireland are not in dispute with the authorities on the issue that has caused dispute in England and Wales. In Northern Ireland, agreement on this issue—the continuous duty credit, as it is called—was reached between the two sides two years ago, in November 1978. The current action is being taken in sympathy. I shall return to that in a moment.
As a result of the action it was clear that urgent measures were needed to provide alternative secure accommodation. Consequently, a new temporary prison has been opened at Magilligan, in County Londonderry, to be known as Her Majesty's prison, Foyle, under a specially appointed governor—a regular member of the prison service—who has the assistance of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in running the prison. The Army is responsible for the security of the prison's perimeter. At Foyle prison this evening there are 42 prisoners, of whom 25 are on remand and 17 sent down by the courts on conviction.
But these measures alone are not enough. In Northern Ireland prisons there are many people awaiting trial on the most serious charges, and it is vital that those whom the courts have already directed to be held in secure custody should continue so to be held.
We therefore decided not only that temporary accommodation was urgently needed for new committals and remands, but that it was necessary to ensure that the temporary prison was not immediately flooded by an influx of all the men who are currently on remand, and who are entitled to a remand hearing every eight days. We have achieved this by providing in this Order in Council that remand hearings may be heard in the prisoners' absence. However, I should stress that this provision is in no way intended to halt the ordinary process of judicial review; courts will still be obliged to examine the case of anyone they have remanded in custody in the usual way; legal representation is not affected; and courts may at any time direct that a prisoner be brought before them in person.
It was not necessary to introduce in Northern Ireland the other temporary provisions that appear in the Act passed in the House two weeks ago in respect of England and Wales because of the different prison conditions. For example, in the Province we do not have the rapid turnover in and out of the prisons that made some of those provisions necessary.
The order was made under the urgent procedure provided for in schedule 1, paragraph 1(4)(b) of the Northern Ireland Act 1974, and was laid before Parliament on 30 October, but the House will know that an affirmative resolution of both Houses is required within 40 sitting days if the order is to remain in force. I am glad, therefore, to have this opportunity to seek the approval of the House for the order. I share with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary deep regret at the necessity for such special procedures and I assure the House that the Government intend to rescind the order immediately conditions permit.
To take account of Parliament's proper concern that emergency legislation of this kind should not remain on the statute book for one moment longer than necessary, article 3 follows the procedure decided upon by this House two weeks ago, namely, that it will expire at the end of one month from the making of the order unless renewed by a further order on my part, again for not more than one month. Such an order is subject to negative resolution.
I sincerely hope that such renewal will be unnecessary. The prison officers are men who, I am sure, are only too aware of the effect that their protest action is having upon the rule of law in the Province. Too many members of the security forces are already being diverted from their primary task.
Every policeman or soldier assigned to prison duties is one policeman or soldier less to provide protection for the whole community.
As I said, the prison officers in Northern Ireland are not in dispute with the authorities. Whatever view may be held of the merits of the dispute in England and Wales, it cannot surely be given priority over the interests of the whole community in Northern Ireland, where the stark reality of the threat of terrorism and violence adds a different and frightening dimension to the consequence of their action.
I hope that, having demonstrated the strength of their support for their brother officers, they will now demonstrate just as clearly the sense of public duty that their profession requires and that, I am the first to acknowledge, they have shown resolutely during the last 10 years in the face of assassinations, intimidation and problems inside the prisons which do not apply in other parts of the Kingdom.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Earlier in his remarks the Secretary of State indicated that the order did not in any way affect legal representation. Is legal representation being affected in any way by the action of the prison officers?

Mr. Atkins: No, Sir. Any prisoner whose remand case comes up before the magistrates every eight days, as it does, and who wishes to be represented legally, can be so represented and is being so represented. There is no effect upon legal representation. The only effect of the order is to provide that the prisoner does not have to be brought before the court unless the court so demands.
I should like, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to refer to one matter that only indirectly bears on the subject of the order, namely, the hunger strike that seven prisoners started two weeks ago at Maze prison. I shall be quite brief about it.
The hunger strike, like the dirty pro test, has only one objective—to force the Government to concede a special political status to certain prisoners, even though they have been convicted of the most dreadful crimes by due process of law. These prisoners seek a regime in which they themselves will decide what clothes they wear, how they pass their time, what work they do, and when and with whom they associate.
The Government cannot compromise on the principle that is at stake here. What we can do and have done is to take the greatest pains to provide a humane regime throughout the prisons. This extends to all prisoners, whether they reject the prison regime or not. We shall continue to take that responsibility most seriously.
I suggest to the House that the Government have the right to expect the leaders of the Northern Ireland community, whatever their views, not to lend support to false ideas. It would be wholly wrong to accept that political motives can mitigate hideous crimes or justify specially favourable treatment for such criminals.
It would be equally wrong to let the rejection of the prison regime by protesting prisoners stand in the way of humanitarian changes that we have decided upon, which apply to all male prisoners throughout Northern Ireland. That is the Government's position, from which we shall not be deflected.
I thought it right to make it plain to the House that I now wish to return to the subject of the order, which I have described already to commend it to the House and to say that I shall ask leave, at the end of the debate, to reply to any of the points that are raised.

Mr. Brynmor John: In a sense, the order extends to Northern Ireland part of what has been done by the Imprisonment (Temporary Provisions) Bill debated in this House at the end of last month. But, as the Secretary of State has pointed out, the regimes are totally different. I understand fully that because of different terms and conditions the Northern Ireland prison officers are not directly involved in the dispute but are merely taking action in support of their mainland colleagues. I hope that it will


be possible for them to effect a return to work in the near future.
There can be no question but that they will know that they have the admiration of many people in this House because of the bravery with which they face external pressures during the course of their normal lives. I hope that they will not sacrifice the greater peace and security of Northern Ireland in the pursuance of their grievance.
I accept and support what the Secretary of State said about the present fast going on in the Maze prison. I am sorry that there seemed to be a series of unfortunate misunderstandings around about the time of the concession on clothing which seem to have attracted a lot of criticism. Notwithstanding that, I believe that there can be no question but that people who are properly convicted of crimes should be punished as criminals and not as political prisoners.
There are a number of other important differences in Northern Ireland on which we should like to have information. The Secretary of State has, understandably, been brief in his opening remarks but we should like to have some further information in his reply. What is most obviously different about the positions in the two countries is what I would refer to as the external situation, by which I mean that which obtains outside the prisons. Most of us in the House have welcomed the gradual change from the policing role of the Army towards the role of the Royal Ulster Constabulary as a normalisation of the process of law and order, but there is a threat that the longer the dispute goes on, the more it will eat into the time of the RUC, and thus prevent the Army from bowing out of the policing role in the way that all of us would like.
May I ask the Secretary of State, therefore, how he calculates that that process will work, how much of the time of the RUC will be taken up progressively by this task, and whether it will prevent the withdrawal of the battalion whose withdrawal was announced only last month?
The second point that we ought to make in the House—and make most forcefully—is that whereas what is categorised as serious crime on the mainland accounts for 30 per cent. of the total

prison population, in Northern Ireland the comparable figure is 80 per cent.
Accounts in newspapers seem to suggest that high-risk prisoners will still be admitted to the prisons. Does that mean that they are the same as serious criminals, or does it mean something different? What is happening with regard to the admission of people to the prisons at the moment? What effect will that have on the total prison population in the next few months?
There is another important difference—the Secretary of State has already answered an intervention about legal representation and it is one that is very important to the prisoners themselves. Whereas there is one corpus of criminal law in Great Britain, there is in Northern Ireland a sharp difference between the emergency provisions legislation and the scheduled offences thereunder, and the rest of the criminal law. Those accused on scheduled offences do not have the benefit of what criminals have on the mainland—the presumption of the right to bail which was conferred by the Bail Act.
I understand that the order applies to terrorist and non-terrorist offences alike. If so, then, because in Northern Ireland under the Emergency Provisions Act it is for the accused to discharge the burden of proving to the court that he is worthy of remand, he will be at a grave disadvantage if he is neither produced to nor has legal representation before the court. The effect of the order is that the court can now lawfully proceed in his absence, it makes a great difference if the onus of proof is on him to get bail or on the police to deny him bail. Without legal representation being not only available, if he should desire it, but actively encouraged when a man is not produced to the court, the miserably small number of people who seem to be admitted to bail in Northern Ireland will shrink even further. Apart from that, whether they be terrorist or non-terrorist offences, the Government should be as sensitive as they can be to applications which are made through legal representatives.
I hope that the Secretary of State will repeat the undertaking given by the Minister of State, Home Office, in columns 326–27 of Hansard on 28 October. Even


if the legal position is somewhat different, legal representation should be available to a man who has been accused and remanded in custody and, through no fault of his own, cannot be produced to the court to make out his own case.
I make it clear that I do not like this order any more than do the vast majority of Members of Parliament. Its saving grace is that it appears to be even more temporary than the Bill which was originally laid before the House relating to Great Britain as a whole. But, as we have cause to remember in this context, Bills which are temporary in nature have a habit in Northern Ireland of being perpetuated into history. As this is not one which long usage will make any more acceptable or relevant to Northern Ireland, I hope that the Secretary of State will not come back at the end of the first month and seek to lay it again.
I have grave reservations on the procedure. I had hoped that it would be by affirmative resolution so that the Secretary of State could update us on the position which then obtained in Northern Ireland. If there is no information, and as a means of securing a debate on that occasion, I believe that we should pray against it to ensure that we are heard.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: The order illustrates the confusion into which we are getting about the sources of the legislation applying to Northern Ireland. The Government presumably could have included a clause in the Imprisonment (Temporary Provisions) Bill—now an Act—which would have provided for the special position of Northern Ireland. As it is, the order is to be
construed as one with the Magistrates' Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1964.
Therefore, one imagines that there is a great deal of unravelling to be done here.
I was surprised to learn that the only provision of the Act that we recently passed, applicable to England and Wales, that needs to be enacted for Northern Ireland is that relating to appearances in person with regard to remand. Are we to suppose that the provisions of the Act regarding the approved place, the powers of a constable, executive bail, early release and the powers to impose a ban on imprisonment in respect of debtors

already exist in Northern Ireland under the emergency powers legislation? If so, I can understand that very little is left.
There is some difficulty here. As the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) said, there are different regimes. Indeed, when he referred to the bail provisions I wondered whether he expressed them accurately. The hon. Gentleman said that the onus was on the applicant. I have no idea what that onus can be. If the provisions regarding bail in Northern Ireland are those that applied before the passage of the Bail Act in Great Britain, there is no right to bail in Northern Ireland but it does not follow that the opposite is the case and that there is any burden of proof or onus on the applicant. Surely that would be a matter for the discretion of the magistrates in any event. Therefore, is it fair to describe the situation as the opposite of what applies to Great Britain? This is another of those marginal differences which apply between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
The prison regime has been described as being different in Northern Ireland, and it certainly is. If the Government go any further in giving extra privileges to prisoners in Northern Ireland, they may establish a situation in which all prisoners whether convicted of scheduled offences or not have a special category status compared with prisoners in the rest of the United Kingdom. Therefore, they will get that special category status in this way. We have heard about the development towards wearing civilian clothing. That was an appalling mistake. It was not merely badly handled, but a wrong decision.
This situation has been brought about by industrial action on the part of the prison service in this country. It is sad that the Northern Ireland prison service, which has served so honourably and courageously in the past 10 years, should have imposed this extra burden on the system.

Mr. James Molyneaux: There will be some feeling of relief that the order does not go as wide as the Imprisonment (Temporary Provisions) Act, which received Royal Assent on 29 October 1980. However, there are certain features and issues common to both.
The order, in a slightly different form of words, repeats section 2 of the Imprisonment (Temporary Provisions) Act dealing with arrangements for remand, as the Secretary of State made clear this evening.
On the Second Reading of the then Bill, the Home Secretary conceded that clause 2 was
not directly concerned with the management of the temporary accommodation".—[Official Report, 28 October 1980; Vol. 991, c. 217.]
It was clear from his subsequent remarks that the clause was motivated perhaps rather more by considerations of convenience than considerations of necessity.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) acknowledged that there could be inconvenience and difficulties, but it must be said that he and his colleagues were by no means enthusiastic about clause 2. There seemed to be a general agreement that the clause stood on its own as a thing apart, unconnected with the main issue. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said:
If that is so, to that extent the case for such a clause has automatically fallen."—[Official Report, 28 October 1980; Vol. 991, c. 236.]
I do not think that the Secretary of State has managed so far to convince us of the need for this order tonight.
It appeared to me that the arguments for section 2 arrangements in England consisted mainly of examples of difficulties arising from the dispersal of prisoners to police cells perhaps some considerable distance from the courts in which the accused would otherwise appear, but that is very unlikely to be a valid consideration in Northern Ireland, where the distances are not likely to be so very great.
Towards the end of the debate on what one might call, for convenience, the England and Wales Bill, the Minister of State, Home Office made a concession in the matter of legal representation of defendants in their absence. We would be very unhappy over the major defect in such an arrangement, namely, the inability of the lawyer to have access to his client. I have to apologise to the Secretary of State because, perhaps, in my question to him earlier this evening I was not sufficiently precise. Instead of simply saying "legal representation".

I should also have said "access to the client."
We would press the Secertary of State, as the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) has already done, to give an assurance similar to that given on 28 October by his colleague, the Minister of State, Home Office, and particularly to clarify the position with regard to bail applications made in the absence of the defendant.
Given the very different physical and geographical circumstances, we on the Official Unionist Bench are not really convinced that the order is necessary, for the reasons that I have already given. Would it have been thought by the Government to be necessary had the prison service in Northern Ireland not been thrown into a certain amount of turmoil and put under hideous pressure by the actions of the Government themselves? There can be no doubt that the tension has been increased and uncertainty has been created by the concession to convicted murderers.
Naturally, I have no means of knowing what consultations took place between the prison service and those who made the decision. I can only assume that the prison service was not consulted at any level. I make that assumption because I simply cannot believe that officers with experience of prison life and knowledge of the particular mentality of the type of prisoner concerned would have acquiesced in making a decision that has not only proved to be disastrous but was doomed to failure from the very start.
I am not particularly curious about the form of words used when the Cabinet made its decision, or about the words used in the Northern Ireland Office and what they may have meant to civil servants in the Northern Ireland Office, or about what interpretation was placed upon the words by the general public. But one thing is crystal clear; the Government have the worst of all worlds. They have infuriated the law-abiding people of Northern Ireland—all sections of the community in Northern Ireland—they have baffled public opinion in Great Britain, and, unfortunately, they have got absolutely nothing in return.
It must be said that the Government dealt another shattering blow to public confidence in attempting to present the


prison clothing decision as part of a long-term programme. In the House of Commons on 27 October the Minister of State said:
The question of a development or evolution in the prison clothing regime in the Province has been under discussion for some months now."—[Official Report, 27 October, 1980; Vol. 991, c. 34.]
Consciously or unconsciously—I am inclined to give the hon. Gentleman the benefit of the doubt and say that it was unconsciously—the Minister was trying to convey the impression that it was going to happen anyway. But if that were so, why did the press notice from the Northern Ireland Office, dated 24 October, bear the heading
Threatened hunger strike at HM Prison, Maze
and then go on to announce the concession?
Of course, the pretence of evolving clothing restrictions was finally blown to bits by the Minister of State himself in a written answer to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson). The Minister of State stated:
There will be a range of civilian type clothing in a contemporary style, comprising trousers, pullovers and shirts. Initially it will be purchased from United Kingdom sources; replacements will be supplied by prison workshops. It will be introduced over the coming months as quickly as the necessary arrangements can be completed. Costings are not yet completed but can be contained within the existing financial ceilings."—[Official Report, 3 November 1979, Vol. 991, c. 453.]
If supplies are initially to be purchased from United Kindom sources with replacements to be supplied at a later stage by prison workshops, introduced
as quickly as necessary arrangements can be completed",
does that not indicate some degree of haste and improvisation? Does not the final sentence, namely,
Costings are not yet completed
indicate that references during the discussion that was taking place for some months, and to that discussion, were something of a sham? It would not have required a great deal of time and effort to have kitted out a tame civil servant in Marks and Spencer's and to have multiplied the cost by the number of prisoners.
Responsible citizens of Northern Ireland, whatever their political belief—

perhaps I should exclude a few who unwisely have jumped on dangerous bandwagons—wish to pay tribute to the prison service in Northern Ireland. It is not its fault that the order has been introduced. Prison officers have patiently endured abuse and insults from condemned murderers who are seeking to whip up public sympathy for the filthy and degrading state that they have created for themselves.
It is important for the world to know and for distinguished churchmen to remember that IRA hunger strikers are not misguided petty thieves or pickpockets in need of correction or spiritual guidance. They are not even men who have been convicted of murder in a fit of rage. They are evil men who have planned and plotted in cold blood to take innocent lives. They are beasts who have gunned down their fellow men and pumped hot lead into their twitching bodies.
Their complaint is that they are not being treated more harshly than other prisoners. Their cry is that they are being treated in exactly the same way as, for example, forgers and drunken drivers. Their demand is that they should be elevated and accorded special facilities. It is in pursuance of that aim that they now choose to starve. We would do well to remember that at least they have a choice. They have the choice between life or death, which choice they have denied to their innocent victims.

Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: I rise briefly to take up two of the points made by the hon. Members for Pontypridd (Mr. John) and Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux). I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State whether it is a fact that section 2 of the Imprisonment (Temporary Provisions) Act 1980 will be put into effect by means of the order. That is a specific question that my right hon. Friend did not answer during his opening remarks. If the answer is "Yes", as I am sure it is, I ask my right hon. Friend to say why, at the time of the passing of that measure, a simple statement was not made and added to the Bill so that clause 2 referred automatically to Northern Ireland. Section 9(2) extends to England and Wales only. Why did not subsection (2) refer to Northern Ireland? That would have made the order redundant. Are we refusing legislatively to treat


Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom, which in fact it is?

Mr. Gerard Fitt: The Secretary of State said that this order was necessary because of an industrial dispute in other parts of the United Kingdom. The right hon. Gentleman was right when he said that a unique set of conditions applied to prisoners in Northern Ireland and to the warders charged with the responsibility of looking after them. In other parts of the United Kingdom there are prisoners. In Northern Ireland there are prisoners, conforming prisoners, non-conforming prisoners, prisoners on the blanket, prisoners wearing their own clothes, prisoners in compounds and huts, prisoners in cells and those who have to apply to the High Court for bail because they have been charged with an offence involving terrorism.
Conditions in Northern Ireland are different. This order, and the order laid before the House last week—which dealt with prisoners in England and Wales—concerns an industrial dispute. Prisoners in Northern Ireland and those in charge of them represent one of the most explosive issues facing the United Kingdom. In the days, weeks and months ahead this will be one of the most serious issues to face the House since the creation of Northern Ireland. It will be far more important than anything that happens in the international arena or on the Continent of Europe.
The Secretary of State said that the hunger strike was a serious issue. That was no exaggeration. Let me tell the history of that hunger strike. In 1972, there was—as there is now—a Conservative Government. I remember speaking to the Home Secretary, who was then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I saw him time and again in his room, which lies behind Mr. Speaker's Chair. I remember speaking to him on the Terrace, in the Lobby and at the Bar of the House. Each time that I spoke to him I appealed to him and pleaded with him. I got down on my knees and begged him to introduce special category status for prisoners in Northern Ireland.
Internment was introduced in 1971 and It brought with it a holocaust that affected

community relations in Northern Ireland. Several murders had taken place. There was an honest-to-God feeling that if the British Government were to make a gesture it would somehow lessen the tension. If the Home Secretary were here he would confirm what I am saying. I and many others appealed to him time and again.
At that time many hunger strikes were taking place and there was the threat of an outbreak of community violence. When the right hon. Gentleman conceded special category status—it was not called political status—my then political colleague Paddy Devlin had flown here for further discussions with the Secretary of State in an attempt to ensure that special category status was granted.
I have to tell the House that I bitterly regret having made those representations. At that time there were 80 Republican prisoners and 40 Loyalist prisoners. I believed that, because of the special circumstances in Northern Ireland at that time, the granting of political or special category status would end the strife. I was terribly wrong.
Within days of special category status being granted, the IRA went on the rampage. A few days later, three soldiers were killed in a land mine explosion in the Glenshane Pass. Within a month, the heart was blown out of the city of Belfast, where I was born and raised, on the day that became known as Bloody Friday. Two soldiers and seven civilians were killed and 130 people were injured, many of them seriously and most in the centre of the city where I live. Those actions were carried out by men for whom I had been pleading only two or three weeks earlier.
On 31 July 1972, six people were killed when the heart of the little village of Claudy was devastated by the IRA. In March 1973 'three soldiers were lured to the Antrim Road, not far from where I live, and killed. In the same month, the IRA issued a statement saying that irrespective of the granting of special category status it was continuing its campaign. In June the following year six people were killed and 33 injured when a car bomb devastated Coleraine, County Derry. On 14 June seven people were badly injured by a car bomb outside a bar in Donegal Street not far from where I live. I heard the explosion.
Everything that I thought would happen did not happen. The IRA went out of its way to ensure that the concessions that had been granted would not bring peace. Within three weeks of the Government granting special category status I bitterly regretted that action. I have not said so before, but I say it now because of the dangerous situation that exists in Northern Ireland at present.
The Secretary of State said that he believes that the IRA does not want concessions, but does want political status. I am inclined to believe him. If I thought that the Government could make concessions that would be regarded as having been given in order to bring about a more human regime in any prison in Northern Ireland I would support them. But I do not believe that that is what the IRA wants.
Reports have appeared in the past two or three weeks. A narticle in the Belfast Sunday News said that, after a visit to her son Mrs. Nelist had reported that the prisoners had no intention of calling off the strike unless full political status was introduced. If that is true, the Government must make their position clear. The reason that we are in such a dangerous position in Northern Ireland is that some people believe that political status will be granted at the end of the day. They do not believe the Government. The believe that they can put on so much pressure that once again there will be people in prison in Northern Ireland wearing uniforms and promoting themselves captains, majors and colonels and ordering around other prisoners in the compounds at Long Kesh as they did from 1972 to 1974.
Those people made themselves field marshals and assumed fancy titles because the Government of the day had allowed them to believe that they were different. It is clear from the advertisements now appearing in the Irish News and the Belfast local papers that what they want is political status. As I said, I bitterly regret having supported that claim and I have no intention of doing so again.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: Just to make it clear, may I point out that I met the leaders when we were ending special category status? All the leaders met me in one room, and their message was "You can come up with any concession you like; if it isn't special cate-

gory status, we are not interested." That is why it is vital that the House puts it on record that special category status is no longer available to prisoners in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Fitt: That intervention will be informative and should leave no doubt about the present demands.
The circumstances that we are discussing arise because of seven people who are on hunger strike. Memories are short. Do we ever take time to think of the victims of those men? Do we ever think of the widows and orphans who are living in their present conditions in Northern Ireland because of the murder of their husbands and fathers?
I know some of these people very well. Twenty yards from my home on the Antrim Road lives a lady who has no legs because she happened to be passing a bar when it was blown up by a Loyalist organisation.
I was saddened that the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) related his remarks solely to IRA violence. Throughout the years there has been ruthless and brutal Loyalist violence as well.

Mr. Molyneaux: I think that the hon. Gentleman will admit that I was talking about the hunger strikers. I do not believe that any so-called "Loyalist" prisoners are on hunger strike at the moment. I have certainly never drawn distinctions among terrorist crimes. I condemned them utterly, whoever committed them.

Mr. Fitt: I certainly accept what the hon. Gentleman says, and I am glad that he has said it. Whatever political cause these people have, whatever their religious or political affiliation, if they commit murder they are not worthy of the sympathy or support of anyone, either in Northern Ireland or in these islands as a whole.
Many of my hon. Friends will remember when the IRA placed a bomb on Donegal Street which killed two soldiers and four innocent council workmen who were blown up outside St. Anne's cathedral. They will also remember how IRA men burst into an Orange hall in Tullyvallen and mercilessly mowed down people in that hall. There was another


incident when Loyalist extremists went into a house in Wolfe Hill and murdered three innocent women simply because they were Catholics.
But the greatest of all crimes which I can recall is important to remember when we are discussing conditions in Northern Ireland because it bears on why people are in prison and why they were sent there in the first place. The outstanding and most brutal tragedy—and there have been many—was when 10 Protestant workmen on their way home from work in Armagh were taken out of their minibus and brutally murdered by machine gun. They still had their lunch boxes in their hands. How in the name of God can any Socialist or any trade unionist in any way, at any time, have sympathy for such actions?
They are the people who demand special treatment. They are the people who demand special category status. They are special category all right, but not in the way that they want it. People who can take life as easily as that are in a category of their own.
Only last week, when the hunger strike in Northern Ireland had started and when they were shouting for special consideration, a 22-year-old mother of three children in Strabane was shot in the back on the street. An hour after that, the attempted murder was claimed by the IRA. Again, only last week in Belfast, two of my constituents, Mr. Corbett and Mr. Copeland, were victims. Mr. Corbett was shot going to his work at Ballysillian, and Mr. Copeland was attacked when working in butcher's shop. Loyalist murderers, either UDA or UDF, attempted to murder them. They are still alive, but I know that their wives and children are sitting beside their hospital beds at present. If and when the people responsible are caught—and I say "if", and I say "when"—should I or anyone else advocate that they be given special category or political status in prison?
When political status was introduced I believed that in some ways it would prevent the continuation of the terrible deeds that were being committed. Special category status was introduced in July 1972. On 5 July, 10 Catholics were murdered by so-called Loyalist extremists.

On 8 and 9 July, a mixture of Catholics calling for political status for the IRA. and Protestants were murdered purely for sectarian reasons. I see no justification for giving any privileges to these people.
Having filled in the background, I wish to point out to the Secretary of State the highly dangerous state of affairs at present. The propaganda has started. Positions are being taken up. People are attempting to push every Catholic in Northern Ireland into the camp which is calling for political status for the IRA. They are trying to push every Protestant in Northern Ireland into the samp which says "You will not get it". We have seen polarisation and alienation in Northern Ireland for too long. I have newspaper cuttings relating to Cardinal O Fiaich and Bishop Edward Daly, which appear to show them on the side of the hunger strikers. Archbishop Armstrong, the Protestant Primate, tells the people of Northern Ireland of the terrible conditions in which the Protestants of the border counties are forced to live as a result of the campaign of assassination waged against them over past years. The Protestant archbishop is apparently on one side and a Catholic cardinal on the other. That can only be disastrous for the people of Northern Ireland. I do not know Cardinal O Fiaich. I cannot speak with any authority about him. I know Bishop Edward Daly. The world knows Bishop Edward Daly. They know where he was during the terrible happenings of Bloody Sunday when he saw so much life taken before his eyes. I believe that Bishop Daly is motivated by the best intentions. I can speak only of the person I know.
One has only to look at editorials in the Irish newspapers to see how potentially dangerous the situation is. One Belfast newspaper, in an editorial on the present situation, said that imprisonment is enough. If a person is imprisoned that should be sufficient retribution. Once in prison, a person should be able to do other things. I do not believe that. I do not believe that taking away a man's liberty because he has committed a heinous crime is enough. There are certain conditions that must be fulfilled in prison.
Another important Irish newspaper in an editorial last week suggested that one should adopt the approach" Never mind


that these people have been found guilty of some serious crime. It is up to us to show a humane and compassionate face." Another Irish newspaper, printed in Dublin, after Unionist Members had voiced their hostility to what appeared to them as the granting of a concession over civilian clothes, suggested in an editorial, that the hostility was only an extension of their anti-Catholic bias. I have opposed and will continue to oppose Unionism. I do not believe, however, that this was an extension of anti-Catholic bias. Yet this is what newspaper editorials say, pushing people into camps where they do not wish to go. I believe that there are thousands of Catholics in Northern Ireland who do not subscribe to the political ideals of the IRA.
I would not want to ascribe any ill intentions to Cardinal O Fiaich. Cardinal O Fiaich has not had a good effect on this controversy. The Unionist population in Northern Ireland believes that Cardinal O Fiaich is in political sympathy with the ideals of the hunger strikers. When there is such close involvement in the political and religious sense on one side, this is bound to create antagonism and hostility on the other.
A report in The Irish Times of a few few days ago states that:
An association of major religious superiors, speaking on behalf of 18,000 priests and nuns and Christian brothers
was demanding that the British Government do something about H block. I am not sure what it was demanding that the Government should do, but the fact that the newspaper stated that 18,000 priests, nuns and Christian brothers were demanding something for Republican hunger strikers is bound to cause antagonism in the majority community. Indeed, it has done so and will continue to do so, because I do not believe that there are 18,000 priests, nuns and Christian brothers who support the demands of the strikers in Long Kesh.
I vividly remember when John Healey, an eminent journalist in The Irish Times, wrote a pertinent article the day after Archbishop O Fiaich had visited the H-blockers in Long Kesh, returning to tell of the undoubtedly very bad conditions there. Mr. Healey wrote an open letter to the Archbishop telling him "Now that you have seen the men on the blanket, why not go to see the men

on the mattresses, people lying in the hospitals and on the mattresses in their own homes, the people with no legs or no arms, the victims of the men in Long Kesh?" I can only say with some regret that the Archbishop did not avail himself of that invitation to visit the people-on the mattresses.
I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to listen to the emotive phrases that will be uttered today, tomorrow and the next-day. You will hear "Are you prepared, to stand by and see the coffins coming, out of Long Kesh?" You have already heard it. I do not want to see any coffins, coming out of Long Kesh, but I did not, want to see any coffins coming out of little churchyards and chapels in Northern Ireland, when the victims of these murderers were being carried out. I cannot forget how many funerals there were of the victims of the men of violence.
I can give the names of victims, because the incidents happened only last week. I can speak of Mr. Corbett and Mr. Copeland, whom people attempted to murder last week because they were Catholics. I think of Mr. Turnly and Miriam Daly, Mr. Bunting and Mr. Little—names that are forgotten here. They are not forgotten statistics to their relatives and children. Whatever their political allegiance, no one was entitled to murder them.
I think also of Mrs. Meek, who was shot dead in an IRA ambush in Ardoyne in North Belfast just a few weeks ago, and of Mr. and Mrs. Younger, who were murdered so brutally in the Wolfe Hill area of Belfast. One could go on and on. A friend of mine, Danny Walsh, has no leg, and will never be able to live with, the fact that his leg was blown off for no known or understandable reason.
You will certainly hear emotive phrases, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There has already been a statement from Long Kesh that gained headlines in the local newspapers. We learnt that those who have gone on hunger strike have made out their wills and sent them to their relatives outside. A lot of their victims did not have an opportunity to send out their wills. They did not have an opportunity to say whether they wanted to live or die. The decision that they had to die was taken for them.
The words "humane" and "humanitarian" are bandied about day after day in newspaper after newspaper by people


who give tacit support to men of violence but who have not the guts to come out and say they do. Shelagh De Valera used them in Donegal last week. Is there anyone anywhere in any doubt about where her sympathies lie? Shelagh De Valera said that there was a callous, unfeeling and self-righteous attitude towards the hunger strikers. All I can say is that the hunger strikers adopted callous, unfeeling and self-righteous attitudes in an attempt to justify themselves.
Let us discuss the really emotive words that are supposed to bring tears to the eyes. From the prison came the statement "We are going on hunger strike for our just demands." The strikers said "We commend our lives to the Irish nation and our souls to the most high God." Let me tell them that the Irish nation does not subscribe to the murderous campaign that they have been waging over the last 12 years. Let me tell them that the vast majority of people on the island of Ireland condemn and reject their tactics. The Irish people do not support what they have been doing.
When they talk of commending their souls "to the most high God" I remind them that I was one of 250,000 people who stood on a hill 13 months ago and listened to His Holiness the Pope using, as he said "the language of passionate pleading." He appealed to people to turn away from violence and said, in terms that could not be misunderstood, that murder is murder and should not be called by any other name. That is where I take my stand. I take my stand with the Pope and the sentiments that he expressed. Those sentiments are expressed by the Irish people. Murder is murder, no matter by whom it is committed, whether it is by the UVF, the UDA or any other para-military organisation.
The order is tabled with the intention of ensuring that an accused person will be brought before the court the following week to put his case before a solicitor. I could vote against the order but I do not believe that it would have any effect, because the Government would have their majority. However, it was necessary to have the debate. It was necessary to focus the attention of the House on what is happening in Northern Ireland prisons and on the real danger in relation to men who have no hesitation in, or com-

punction about, taking innocent lives and who are demanding special status fot themselves.
Whatever the Government's reasoning, if they did not intend to give the prisoners civilian clothing they should have said "You are not getting civilian clothing." If they intended to give them civilian clothing they should have given it. I repeat that if the Government want to improve conditions for the prisoners in Northern Ireland in line—I hesitate to use these words because they have been so abused—with humanitarian considerations, they should not be deflected from doing so by hostility from any political quarter.
The Government should make it clear to those engaged in the hunger strike that they will not obtain political status. By telling the truth, and telling it in such a way that it cannot be misunderstood—that there cannot be any reasonable cause for doubt—it is possible that the men on hunger strike will realise the error of their ways and bring the strike to an end. I do not want to see those men dying. I do not want to see anyone dying. The Government must show their resolution and not allow themselves to be blackmailed by people giving support to the hunger strike.
The hunger strikers themselves cannot engage in propaganda. People outside the prisons are doing that for them. I refer to influential people who are trying to force the Government. An Irish newspaper in London recently gave semi-profiles of the seven hunger strikers. They did so in an attempt to build up an aura of martyrdom around the strikers. We must not forget the biggest threat of all—the Government are being told that if coffins are taken from Long Kesh they must think of the terrible consequences, the escalation of terrorism and the innocent lives that will be lost. That is blackmail. It is an attempt to absolve those who will commit murder before the murders have been committed.
I wish to advance an argument that I have never heard advanced in the House. There are people in Northern Ireland who are innocent of any crime. They have not yet pulled the trigger or primed the bomb. They may be looking for an easy target. They may be getting together the material to make a bomb. If the


Government say that they will grant political status, those people will say "We shall go ahead with our acts because we will get political status and when an amnesty comes we will be free." Letting those people believe that they will get political status ensures that a murder will be carried out. That is the sole object of such a policy.
I ask the Secretary of State to be as humane as possible to every prisoner in Northern Ireland, of whatever political or religious belief—but not to make the mistake of granting political status. That mistake was made in 1972. I believe that it led to the taking of many innocent lives in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Humphrey Atkins: The House knows that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) is a brave man. During his time in the House he has suffered at home from personal attacks, both verbal and physical. We all know that, yet he has never hesitated to speak his mind. Whether it is popular or unpopular in his constituency, he says what he means. I cannot say that he has suffered, because, luckily, he is still with us. He has not suffered physically, but I know the strain that he has been under for many years. He has done what every Member of the House should do, namely, say what he thinks. He has done that again tonight. We all recognise not only his physical bravery but also the bravery that he has shown tonight. He has done something that not all of us do and that not all of us find easy to do, namely, to admit that in past years the course that we advocated was wrong.
The hon. Gentleman told us that in 1972 he tried hard to persuade one of my predecessors to adopt a certain course and that he now regrets it. At both the beginning and the end of his speech, he told us that he was wrong and that he advises against that course now. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the course which he advocated then, and which he now confesses to be wrong, was wrong. I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman's comment that we cannot treat perpetrators of hideous crimes differently because of the alleged motives for which they commit those crimes. There is no way in which either I or the Government can acknowledge that it is less heinous to

murder people, blow off their face or attack them because one disagres with their political motives than it is to do so for any other reason. That is the Government's position.
It is the position of other authorities as well. As the hon. Gentleman said, last year during his visit to the Republic of Ireland, His Holiness the Pope said exactly the same thing—that one cannot treat crimes differently because they are alleged to have a political motive. We have heeded that advice and we believe it to be right. Although it may be a lesser authority in the hon. Gentleman's eyes, the European Commission of Human Rights said exactly the same thing this summer. As the House will recollect, four Northern Ireland prisoners who were protesting and seeking political status applied to the Commission for a declaration that they ought to be treated differently and have political status. The Commission made it clear beyond a peradventure that there was no basis for that claim in national law, in any European convention, or in the norms of international law. It declared that that claim for differential status because of the political motives of their crimes was inadmissible, and it was thrown out.
Let me make it clear beyond any doubt whatever that that is the Government's position. I said earlier this evening that the Government will not compromise on this principle. If the House needs reminding, I refer it to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said a little while ago in answer to questions:
There will be no concessions to those on hunger strike—none at all".—[Official Report, 28 October 1980; v. 991, c. 202.]
I greatly hope that those words are clearly heard and understood by those who are seeking something which the Government cannot and will not give.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the effect that there are those in Northern Ireland who are supporting this claim. At the very best, they are misguided to do so. But it is worse than that, because I believe that there are still some people in Northern Ireland whose priority above all else is to fight the old sectarian battle. Such people see the prisoners as an extension of the battleground and demand that the authorities fight the sectarian war on their side.
That will not happen. The prisons are places where criminals are detained in accordance with the rule of law. The Government do not see prisoners as heroes of one part of the community to be appeased, nor as enemies of the other to be brutalised. The Government's business is to carry out the verdicts of courts of law, to detain securely in custody those committed to prison—and this we shall do—and to treat everybody as the courts order. I hope very much that people will understand that this is the Government's position, from which we cannot and will not be shifted. However, I accept that the Government's business is to operate a regime which is as humane as reasonable in the prisons. We have sought to do that and we shall continue to do so. However, what matters to me more than anything is that people convicted of hideous crimes and sentenced to imprisonment by the courts should be securely locked away so that they cannot be a danger to their fellow citizens for a long time. What happens to them inside is of less importance, but the regime inside the prison must be adjusted to ensure that the conditions inside the prison are as humane as possible.

Mr. Concannon: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the point about hunger strikers in prisons in Northern Ireland, I think it should be said that, irrespective of the Government's position, there is -no way in which this House would give any credence to giving special category status to those prisoners in Northern Ireland. Whatever they are doing now is futile. That should be said not only by the Government but by the whole House.

Mr. Atkins: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said, and, if I take the sense of hon. Members correctly, that is the feeling of the whole House. There can be no granting of political status for prisoners on hunger strike.
The House will know that since 1974 successive Governments have maintained a consistent policy about hunger strikers. We make it absolutely plain to those who are on hunger strike that they will not be fed artificially or forcibly, and that if they persist in that course the gradual

deterioration in their health will continue. I know that that may bring great suffering on their families. I can understand that there may be sympathy for them more widely within the community, but those men are bringing that suffering about. They, not us, have it in their power to prevent it. I sincerely hope that their families and those in the community who may have influence over them will use that influence and persuade them that their action is wrong and futile.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) raised the question of security at Foyle prison. He asked whether we believed that high-risk and serious criminals could be adequately coped with there. I am confident that that can be done. At present, those held in the Foyle prison are not high-risk prisoners. They are mostly relatively short-term prisoners of a lower risk nature. I have no reason to suppose that we cannot cope with the high-risk prisoners, but we must keep a careful eye on the situation. It is important to keep the high-risk prisoners out of the way of the public.

Mr. John: It was said on behalf of the Prison Officers Association that prison officers would continue to receive high-risk prisoners in the normal way. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that?

Mr. Atkins: I hope that the current dispute will be over shortly and that the high risk prisoners will be accepted into the Maze prison which, as the hon. Gentleman will know, is a very secure prison. I am conscious of the necessity to put high-risk prisoners under the closest possible surveillance. I am not anxious about the situation at present.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about bail, and he spoke of the possible disadvantages to the applicants for bail. I do not believe that those disadvantages apply. If the court considers it necessary for the applicant for bail to appear in person, it is free to require him to appear in person. There is no question of an applicant not being legally represented. If any applicant feels that he is not being properly legally represented, he can make representations through the authoirties to the effect that he wants to appear in person, and we shall consider it. The order does away with the necessity. It does not mean that the applicant cannot appear in


person, and we shall take as much care as we can to ensure that nobody is disadvantaged by the order.
My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) and my hon. Friend—

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Did the right hon. Gentleman indicate that it will also be within the scope of his own office in a particular case to decide whether a prisoner who wishes it may make a personal appearance? He appeared to indicate that by a phrase which fell from him.

Mr. Atkins: No, Sir. What I said was that there is no requirement for an applicant to appear in person; that the applicant can be legally represented. If there is any doubt about the representation or the lack of representation of an applicant, that is bound to be taken into account first by myself and then by the court. We would draw to the attention of the court that an applicant might feel himself disadvantaged because there had been some hitch in the arrangement by which he could be legally represented, in which case I have no doubt that the court would require the applicant to appear in person. But the normal procedure, which is being followed currently and has been followed since the order came into effect, is that applicants who wish it are legally represented, and that is all that is necessary under the order.
I hope that that deals with the right hon. Gentleman's point. It does not look as if it does.

Mr. Powell: The order suggests that it is a matter for the court to decide whether it is desirable in the interests of justice that the man should be produced. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to be suggesting that he or those acting on his behalf would apply their minds to individual cases and, where they thought fit, would make representations to the court. Is this really what he has in mind?

Mr. Atkins: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman raised this point. It is entirely for the court to decide. What I am saying is that if it appears, through the prison authorities or any body such as that, that an applicant is unhappy about his legal representation, it is the prison authorities' business and my busi-

ness to make that clear to the court, who will then decide. But the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct. The discretion is entirely that of the court. It is not my discretion. I believe that is how it should be.

Mr. John: This is a difficult problem, but can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that 100 per cent. of the people appearing on remand in Northern Ireland are legally represented? If not, they suffer a very great disadvantage, because they are unable to make their own case. They certainly do not have the presumption in their favour that people in Great Britain have. Therefore, they have to be present, or somebody has to be present on their behalf, to show a positive reason why a remand should be on bail rather than in custody. Are such people always represented?

Mr. Atkins: What I can say is that 100 per cent. of those pople who wish to be represented are. Not everyone wishes to be represented. The hon. gentleman knows that as well as I do. Anyone who wishes to be represented can be, and is, represented. Admittedly, the order has been running for only a short time. Everyone who wishes to be represented has been so represented. If there are difficulties, the court will wish the applicant to appear in person—if there are not difficulties caused by the applicant. These are matters for the court.
What I am trying to say to the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, to the House as a whole—is that we recognise that these are exceptional provisions. We do not wish them to last any longer than they have to. We want to make sure that people do not feel aggrieved that they have been badly treated and not given the right, either in person—which they now do not have—or through representatives, to argue their case. In so far as it lies with me, we shall seek to ensure that does not happen. The final decision in every case lies with the court.
My hon. Friends the Members for Orpington and for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) asked how it came about that the provisions in the order were not included in the Imprisonment (Temporary Provisions) Act which was passed about a fortnight ago. I can give two reasons why that did not happen. First, as they both know, that legislation went a great deal wider


than the order, because in England and Wales more powers are needed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary than are needed in Northern Ireland.
The second reason was that when the House was discussing the Imprisonment (Temporary Provisions) Bill there was no need to have the powers in Northern Ireland because the prison officers there had not announced their intention of taking sympathetic action in support of their brethren on this side of the Irish Sea. I venture to suggest that if we had come to the House and asked for powers in Northern Ireland which were not required, the House might not have been enthusiastic about passing the Bill. It was only subsequent to the passing of the Bill that the necessity became obvious to us.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Is my right hon. Friend having any discussions with the representatives of the prison officers in Northern Ireland, or is it his view that their industrial action will remain in total sympathy with their brethren on this side of the Irish Sea?

Mr. Atkins: There is nothing for the Government to discuss with the prison officers in Northern Ireland. There is no dispute in Northern Ireland between the Government and the prison officers. As I said in opening, the action being taken by the prison officers is entirely sympathetic in support of what is happening in England and Wales. I hope that now that they have demonstrated their support for prison officers in England and Wales they will reconsider their action and withdraw it because of the peculiar difficulties in Northern Ireland. As regards discussions, there is nothing to discuss.

Mr. John: That cannot be right. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's analysis that it is sympathetic action. But the cardinal point which he can discuss with representatives of the prison officers in Northern Ireland is whether they will reverse their decision to take sympathetic action in support of their British colleagues.

Mr. Atkins: Yes. I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. We can ask them to do that, but it is not a matter for discussion. There can be no question of negotiation between the Government and the prison officers in Northern Ireland because there is nothing about which to negotiate. Naturally, we are talking to them and hoping that they will change their minds and withdraw their support for the action that is happening in England and Wales. Discussion implies some kind of negotiation. There is nothing about which to negotiate. I have pleaded in the House tonight for the prison officers in Northern Ireland to withdraw their industrial action. I repeat the plea and will do so on every possible occasion, because the situation in Northern Ireland is different from the position in England and Wales. I believe that the prison officers would do well not only to reconsider their action but to see that it is in everybody's best interests that they should. If they do, that will enable the Government to rescind this order, which I hope to be able to do as early as possible. In the meantime, I hope that the House will agree to it.

Question put:

The House divided: Ayes 112, Noes 17.

Division No. 492]
AYES
[9.38 p.m.


Alison, Michael
Cockeram, Eric
Heddle, John


Arnold, Tom
Colvin, Michael
Henderson, Barry


Aspinwall, Jack
Cope, John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Corrie, John
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Hooson, Tom


Bendall, Vivian
Dorrell, Stephen
Hurd, Hon Douglas


Berry, Hon Anthony
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Best, Keith
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Lawrence, Ivan


Bevan, David Gilroy
Eyre, Reginald
Le Marchant, Spencer


Biggs-Davison, John
Faith, Mrs Sheila
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lyell, Nicholas


Brinton, Tim
Fisher, Sir Nigel
McCrindle, Robert


Budgen, Nick
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
MacGregor, John


Butcher, John
Garel-Jones, Tristan
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Glyn, Dr Alan
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Goodlad, Alastair
McQuarrie, Albert


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Gow, Ian
Marlow, Tony


Chapman, Sydney
Greenway, Harry
Marten, Neil (Banbury)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mates, Michael


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hampson, Dr Keith
Maude, Rt Hon Angus




Mellor, David
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Thompson, Donald


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Proctor, K. Harvey
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Rathbone, Tim
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Rees, peter (Dover and Deal)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Renton, Tim
Trippier, David


Moate, Roger
Rhodes James, Robert
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Viggers, Peter


Murphy, Christopher
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Waddington, David


Myles, David
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Waller, Gary


Neale, Gerrard
Speed, Keith
Watson, John


Needham, Richard
Speller, Tony
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Nelson, Anthony
Stainton, Keith
Wheeler, John


Neubert, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor
Wickendon, Keith


Newton, Tony
Stevens, Martin
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Onslow, Cranley
Stradling Thomas, J.



Page, Rt Hon Sir Graham (Crosby)
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Tebbit, Norman
Mr. Carol Mather and


Parris, Matthew
Temple-Morris, Peter
Mr John Wakeham


Porter, Barry
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)





NOES


Alton, David
Fitt, Gerard
Molyneaux, James


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Canavan, Dennis
Homewood, William



Cryer, Bob
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Dixon, Donald
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Mr. Wm. Ross and


Eastham, Ken
Maxton, John
Mr. Robert, J. Bradford

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Remand (Temporary Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 (S.I., 1980, No. 1626), a copy of which was laid before this House on 30 October, be approved.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No.

73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)

VALUE ADDED TAX

That the Value Added Tax (Health) Order 1980 (S.I., 1980, No. 1602), a copy of which was laid before this House on 5 November, be approved.—[Mr. Peter Rees.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — WILDLIFE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Newton.]

Miss Janet Fookes: I rise to speak on the subject of the avoidable destruction of wildlife. We all recognise that in the wild, many creatures prey upon one another. However, there is a pattern and balance in nature, which man has not always observed in his dealings with wildlife. With his vast powers of destruction man has too often been guilty of the most merciless exploitation, so that many species have become extinct or are in danger of becoming so.
I start from the principle that man should recognise the right to existence of wildlife and that in his dealings there should be respect and reverence for all creatures, great and small. As the hymn wisely observed
The Lord God made them all.
It follows, therefore, that, when animals and birds appear to damage human interests, that damage should be proved to the hilt. Too often, birds and animals are made easy scapegoats without full thought or consideration being given as to who is to blame. If it is proved to the hilt, farmers and others should, as far as possible, take deterrent measures and seek humane options to destruction. If that is not possible, destruction should be as humane and limited as possible.
I should like to deal with two aspects concerning the avoidable destruction of wildlife. I shall call the first aspect careless or reckless destruction, without deliberate intention. The second part is the deliberate but unnecessary destruction of wildlife by various means. I shall give two examples of what the first category involves. We have all seen distressing pictures of sea birds covered in oil. When that occurs they are usually unable to obtain food and, as a result, they gradually die of starvation. The lucky ones may be washed up on the beaches and rescued. However, for many thousands that oil will mean a lingering and unhappy death.
I am sure that nobody spills oil with the intention of causing birds suffering, but that is the end product. Of course

I am aware of the initiatives that the Government have taken to prevent the accidental or deliberate spillage of oil and to provide for clearing it up should an accident occur. However, Governments never make funds available for cleaning sea birds. From my work with th Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals—of whose council I am chairman—I know that it is a painstaking job which requires a great deal of expertise. It can take several hours to clean a bird. Furthermore, it is necessary to give the birds first aid treatment before they are ready to go through the washing process.
No detergent has been found that can remove some types of oil while leaving the bird undamaged. I was grateful to Shell for providing the RSPCA with a mobile bird unit for first aid treatment. Often, birds suffer as a result of having swallowed oil in an attempt to get it off their feathers. The unit is most helpful and useful. However, it remains a fact that welfare organisations with limited funds raised from private persons receive no Government aid. That is contrary to experience in the United States where I am told, such funds are made available.
The second type of destruction of birds that worries me is poisoning by lead left around from spent pellets or fishermen's weights. The problem particularly affects water fowl. A study listed by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds showed that about half of a sample of mute swans died as a result of ingesting lead. The symptons are very distressing. The birds suffer from, among other things, anaemia, convulsions, paralysis of muscles, general lethargy, internal lesions and loss of weight, because they seem less able to take in food. Indeed, I gather that often the immediate cause of death is starvation induced by lead poisoning.
We ought to be doing research into means of overcoming such avoidable destruction of wildlife, either by the development of non-toxic pellets or by other means. I hope to hear my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary give me some hope and encouragement on that point. Thousands of birds are affected.
I turn to the deliberate destruction of wildlife, under which heading I put the use of unathorised poison on birds and mammals. I pay a great tribute to the


booklet "Silent Death" produced by the RSPB of which I am a humble member. It is a scholarly investigation and I can hardly do justice to it in the short time at my disposal. Investigations between 1966 and 1978 showed that there were 338 confirmed instances of deliberate poisoning which could not be justified.
That is against a background of it being difficult to obtain evidence. Poisoning often takes place in remote parts of the countryside and one can safely say that the confirmed incidents represent only the tip of the iceberg and that instances of poisoning are probably very much greater than the figures suggest. The investigation involved 53 species of birds, some protected and some very rare, including birds of prey which we are desperately trying to conserve. Six species of mammals were also involved.
I was particularly horrified to discover that some of the animals and birds had been poisoned by the use of strychnine, that most diabolical of poisons, which leads to a painful and lingering death. Under the law, strychnine can be used only for the destruction of moles, but I gather that 14 lbs was purchased in 1978. One authority has observed that in his opinion that is far more than is needed for the destruction of any number of moles and it clearly indicates a misuse of the poison. I doubt greatly whether it is even necessary for the destruction of moles. There ought to be far greater efforts to trap them and not to use poison. They often die painfully underground where we cannot see them. Out of sight ought not to mean out of mind.
One wonders why there should be this use of poisons. The booklet "Silent Death" suggests that one reason may be the management of shooting estates, where gamekeepers and their helpers—mistakenly, I believe—seek to preserve their grouse or other stock by poisoning those that are thought to prey upon them. Another possible cause is the use of poisons by shepherds to protect lambs from birds.

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Newton.]

Miss Fookes: The booklet "Silent Death", referring to birds attacking lambs, makes extraordinarily interesting reading:
Crows are blamed for killing lambs and to a lesser extent attacking the eyes of helpless ewes. A study of hooded crow damage to hill sheep in Argyllshire showed that the damage to ewes was only slight in economic terms. Starvation, stillbirth and disease were the major causes of death among the lambs. Although 48 per cent. of the lambs found dead had been attacked by crows only 17 per cent. were alive at the time. In most instances the crows killed lambs that would have died anyway.
The same situation probably applies to both crows and ravens in uplands elsewhere in Britain.
That is a perfect example of what I said earlier, that birds and animals are often needlessly and wrongly blamed and action taken accordingly.
Indeed, the Royal Commission on environmental pollution very much supports the RSPB. It says:
We strongly associate ourselves with the organisations concerned in regarding the practice"—
the deliberate misuse of poisons—
as reprehensible and we support the RSPB in its campaign to demonstrate that many bird species are not the vermin that they are held to be.
I can only hope that my hon. Friend will take due note of those points and will give some words of comfort to me tonight.
Would that poisoning were the only worry. Alas, snaring continues and is still legal. It is highly indiscriminate, catching not only wildlife that was not intended to be caught but often domestic creatures as well. Again, it may cause an agonising and lingering death. Often, in its frantic attempts to free itself, the animal succeeds only in drawing the noose tighter. Some horrible pictures have been shown by the RSPCA of the small spaces into which animals have got themselves.
The use of crossbows is also uncontrolled. I remind the House that these were medieval weapons of war, and they are every bit as lethal now as they were when they were standard arms for medieval armies. With no control, they could fall into the hands of irresponsible people. Again, the RSPCA knows that many animals and birds have suffered from the use of crossbows.
The problem of badgers and bovine TB has exercised the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food recently and is the subject of the exhaustive and recently published inquiry by Lord Zuckerman. I accept, sadly and reluctantly, that the connection between badgers and bovine TB has definitely been established, and I recognise of course that, where the badgers are suffering from bovine TB, they too will suffer for quite a long time if they are not put out of their misery. But whilst I realise that we must deal with this problem by control measures, there are several major reservations I want to make to that acceptance.
I remain very anxious about gassing as it is undertaken at present as a means of control on the ground that it is not humane. This is very largely because it is difficult to gas with proper quantities the very intricate underground passages which form the badgers' setts. I notice that Lord Zuckerman recommends that there should be improved techniques, possibly making use of the expertise of the Chemical Defence Establishment. I think that it it vital, if gassing is to continue, that this should be done. However, I deplore his recommendation that badgers in areas which are not infected but which are contigous to those which are should be sampled. That, of course, means that the badgers have to be killed. I do not see any justification for that in such areas.
I hope that we can look very seriously at the development of techniques for testing live badgers. This is possible with cattle, of course, but so far it has not been developed sufficiently with badgers. I hope also that the setts will be left alone and that people will not be brought in to destroy setts permanently. It is better that they be sealed for as long as necessary to end the infection, and that then they should be reopened so that badgers can recolonise them.
Above all, I hope that the Government will publicise the fact that infected badgers are a small minority of the badger population and occur only in specific geographical pockets. In general, badgers are still protected animals, and no one should be tempted to take the law into his own hands and kill badgers unlawfully. It is vital that people do not panic. I am thinking especially of farmers with cattle at risk.
I shall not deal with wildlife in other parts of the world save to make a passing mention. All of us who are concerned with the conservation of wildlife are very worried about what is often the wholesale and meaningless slaughter of such creatures as seals, dolphins and whales I hope that, whenever our Government are engaged in international activity, they will be very serious in the pressure that they put on other nations to try to improve the situation.
I realise that I am precluded by the rules of the House from directly advocating changes in legislation. However, I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise the broad hints that I am dropping to him and that he will be able to give me words of encouragement indicating the concern that the Government feel about the conservation of wildlife and the humane treatment of wildlife when it is necessary to destroy it.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Hector Monro): I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) for affording the House the opportunity to discuss a problem that is of concern to all of us who have an interest in the countryside and who have its wildlife at heart, whether we be landowners, farmers, foresters, bird watchers, ardent conservationists or merely share a genuine concern that our wildlife should not unnecessarily be destroyed. I hope that by the end of my remarks I will have convinced my hon. Friend that the Department of the Environment has many of her views closely at heart and that, collectively, we shall do everything possible to play our part in the conservation of wild life.
We already have means for protecting wildlife. We probably have the best legislation in the world, although we intend to improve even that, if possible, in the not-too-distant future.
We have 167 national nature reserves in Great Britain that are owned or managed by the Nature Conservancy Council or are the subject of some agreement between the council and the owners. There are other reserves and areas in the custody of the voluntary bodies—the National Trusts, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the County Natural-


ists Trusts, the Wildfowl Trust, and many others. There are local nature reserves, and bird sanctuaries.
There are areas of special scientific interest that have been notified by the Nature Conservancy Council to the local planning authorities because the land possesses some feature especially important for nature conservation. Additionally, the NCC is empowered to enter into agreements with owners of land that has been notified as an area of special scientific interest so that the land may continue to be managed in a way that is beneficial to the wildlife interest.
The House may have seen the letter in The Times today from Mr. Derek Barber, Sir Arthur Norman, Sir Peter Scott and Mr. Walter Lane, all dedicated and responsible conservationists. They draw attention to the continuing loss of wildlife habitats brought about by the growth of agriculture and forestry, and invite the Government to invest the Nature Conservancy Council, our advisers on wildlife matters, with power to safeguard the 3,000 or so—I believe the figure is nearly 4,000—sites of special scientific interest, and to provide the NCC with more resources to do this.
I can assure the House that the Government have been seized of the need presented by the loss of important sites for the past 18 months. We do not go all the way with the writers of the letters. Not all the sites notified to local authorities as of special scientific interest are likely to be subjected to a change in use which would threaten the wildlife interest.
The forthcoming Wildlife and Countryside Bill, which we plan to introduce as soon as parliamentary time permits, will contain measures aimed at protecting habitats and others that will have the effect of reducing avoidable destruction to wildlife. We shall be proposing that the Secretary of State shall desginate particularly sensitive areas that are important to wildlife and already notified as SSSIs where it will be a requirement for the landowner or occupier to give notice of some operations that are potentially damaging to the wildlife interest. The NCC must be informed before those operations are undertaken.
This will provide breathing space during which the council and the owner will have

the opportunity to assess the impact on the wildlife that might be brought about by the proposed operation. Where appropriate, the council will open negotiations which it is hoped will result in an agreement, satisfactory both to landowners and the council and that will have the end product of maintaining the wildlife interest unimpaired. In my view, such mutually acceptable arrangements indicate the way forward.
We are, of course, conscious that extra resources may well be the inevitable consequence of the additional protection we want to afford to our sensitive sites.
I believe that that is a fair answer, at the earliest possible moment, to the letter in The Times. It reaffirms our determination to help.
Much of what I have said has been deployed in our consultative documents on the Bill, as my hon. Friend will be aware.
My hon. Friend mentioned the very sad effects of oil pollution. I know the important part played by the RSPCA and many enthusiasts, who will turn up at the drop of a hat to try to help to clean birds. We know the tragic plight of birds, which is inevitable after a major spillage. I have read Richard Mabey's book "The Common Ground", as perhaps my hon. Friend has. It shows how serious the whole issue is. I have taken on board my hon. Friend's point about the cost to the RSPCA and others.
Whilst I am thinking of consultative documents connected with the Bill—documents that were published earlier in the year—I am reminded of the question of crossbows that my hon. Friend raised. The matter will be taken care of in the legislation. I share my hon. Friend's view that the crossbow is an intolerable weapon to use against any living thing.
My hon. Friend rightly dwelt on "Silent Death". I am grateful to her for mentioning that publication by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, for it enables me to express publicly my appreciation to the society for what is an extremely informative and thoroughly thought-provoking publication. I found it most interesting reading, as I know my hon. Friend and many others have.
The introduction says that the white-tailed eagle became extinct as a breeding


species in about 1916, and has not returned naturally. By good fortune, I went to the Western Isles this autumn to see the white-tailed eagles that have been reintroduced from Norway. They are the most splendid birds that I have ever seen, and I am glad to say that the colonisation is going satisfactorily.
That is a side issue to the serious matter that my hon. Friend raised. "Silent Death" reveals a disturbing state of affairs and quite rightly points to one of the biggest threats facing some of our rarest birds, such as the golden eagle and red kites, namely, the deliberate misuse of agricultural chemicals such as strychnine, alphachloralose and mevinphos in poison baits. It is illegal for these pesticides to be used in the way that the report described—treating of a bait which the unsuspecting prey eats and then dies painfully. It is extremely difficult to detect all such offences, for they occur in remote areas of the countryside, and it may be many days, if ever, before the stricken bird is detected.
We must accept that the record of incidents compiled by the RSPB does not represent all the incidents that occur, but it represents a fair cross-section. These three pesticides account for over 90 per cent. of the detected incidents, mevinphos being detected in 45 per cent. of cases, alphachloralose in 30 per cent. and strychnine in 18 per cent. These three compounds are the most likely used, because they are acutely toxic and can be easily applied to a bait. All three are subject to the Poisons Acts 1972 and 1978. Therefore, their use is not only reprehensible but illegal.
The report suggests further controls on these substances, including—because greater quantities are misused illegally than are legally applied to crops in Great Britain—the withdrawal of mevinphos from the British market. My Department naturally is currently discussing with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and other Government Departments this suggestion, along with other recommendations, including those for legislative changes. I cannot, of course, pre-empt or predict the outturn of these continuing talks, but one matter that we considered for the Wildlife and Countryside Bill was an extension of the scope of search warrant powers, contained

in the Protection of Birds Acts. This should help to give greater protection to those species, including our vulnerable birds of prey, which most require it. It will, we hope, enable the police authorities to enforce the law more easily.
I am personally appalled by the deliberate misuse of poisons to kill birds and mammals, and I hope that the wide publicity given to this practice by the report will bring home to those employing such methods that they are acting criminally and will go much of the way to stop them from using them.
The Times letter highlights sharply the present problem—that of reconciling wildlife and conservation with the need to face realities imposed upon modern agriculture by economic reality. We must try to prevent the unnecessary destruction of wildlife, whether it is plant or animal. That is why I read with interest the statement of intent that the National Farmers' Union and Country Landowners' Association produced three years ago called "Caring for the Countryside." The theme is clear. It is that the conservation of the landscape and wildlife depend largely on the action of individual farmers and landowners. The advice given is as correct now as it was then. It is:
With care and foresight it is possible to increase production and the attractiveness of the farm as well as its ability to support native flora and fauna. Get advice. Think before you act. Conserving landscape and wildlife means taking care of what there is just as much as creating new scenery and new habitats
If that advice were conscientiously followed, much of the destruction to our wildlife would be avoided. It is always open to the landowner or the farmer to seek advice from the local ADAS man or from the regional office of the NCC. We must also ensure that the basic necessity for any wildlife—the land itself—is not depleted by unnecessary development.
My hon. Friend mentioned a number of other important issues, and I shall try to deal with them in the time available. She spoke about lead shot. That comes from both fishing tackle and, in some wildfowling, from guns. I live in a wildfowling area and I find it reprehensible that many wildfowlers, perhaps inadvertently and perhaps from lack of judgment, shoot too many geese which are out of range.
This matter causes great anxiety to the society of which my hon. Friend is chairman. Indeed, the RSPCA drew attention in its report into shooting and angling, published in 1979, to the problem of discarded fishing tackle and the danger to mute swans caused by the ingestion of lead thought to be the consequence of picking up anglers spit shot and weights.
The advent of nylon line, which is practically indestructible, has resulted in many fatalities and injuries to wild animals caused by entanglement or even the swallowing of line left on the river banks. The various responsible angling bodies and the angling press have made laudable efforts to bring home to their members and readers how harmful such a practice can be and have enjoined their members and readers to act in a responsible manner. I hope that this discussion tonight will serve as a timely reminder to all those who fish on our rivers, reservoirs and lakes to exercise great care and to remove discarded tackle and litter, whether or not it is their own, when they have finished their day's fishing.
The death of mute swans on the River Avon at Stratford in 1978 and 1979 brought the subject of lead ingestion into sharp focus. Since then the NCC has been examining the problem through the medium of a working party composed of representatives of anglers, the veterinary service of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fishers and Food, water authorities and others interested in the problem. It is already clear that swans, particularly, are prone to ingesting lead shot, usually in mistake for grit, which is normally part of the diet, and that numbers of them suffer and die from lead poisoning as a result. It is also becoming clear that the scale of the problem is greater where aquatic plant life is scarce, normally in or near urban areas. I understand that the NCC hope to publish its report "Lead Poisoning in Swans" shortly and I look forward to its appearance.
My hon. Friend spoke feelingly and at great length about the problem of badgers. I share her concern—not about the tuberculosis issue but about the fact that badgers are being killed in other ways. I confess an affection for badgers. That is why I feel that it is a sad fact that

the Badgers Act 1973 has not provided the protection for which many of us hoped. We all know that an unauthorised person may not kill a badger. In an area of special protection an unauthorised person may kill only to prevent serious damage, which must be obvious and easily proved. Yet we know that badgers are being killed without those qualifications being satisfied.
I think that the message was especially well brought out in the horrifying article in The Sunday Times yesterday about badger baiting and digging. It is an intolerable occupation, which must be stopped by every possible means.
The issue raised by my hon. Friend about badgers and tuberculosis is regrettable. I am afraid that the Zuckerman report is clear that we must accept the advice in the interests of agriculture so that cattle do not become infected through the movement of badgers. I hope that the steps that will be carried out by the Ministry will have their desired effects. In the long run it is probable that we shall see the continued stock of badgers throughout Britain that we all wish to see. It is tragic that they are carriers of tuberculosis. In the coming months we shall watch carefully over what must be done relative to the Zuckerman report.
I hope that what I have been able to say tonight shows that the Department of the Environment, in close co-operation with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, has a real understanding and feeling both for wildlife and the countryside. Over the months ahead we shall deploy—if parliamentary time permits—the arguments that we feel are important when discussing a Bill on wildlife and the countryside. We intend that Britain will be even safer for wildlife and wild plants and that everyone will be proud of the fact that Britain feels genuinely and sincerely about wildlife. We want to see Britain in the forefront, where it is at present. There is no question of our being complacent. We believe that we must keep the lead in the world in that respect.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Ten o'clock.